LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday,
April 22, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Norman R. Fleury, Dennis Johnstone, Leo Chartrand and many others requesting
the Family Services minister (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider restoring funding for
the friendship centres in
Mr. Speaker: I have been advised by the honourable member
for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) that he no longer wishes to proceed with his
petition, and since his petition now is a House document, is there leave of the
House to remove the petition of the honourable member for The Maples?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: That is agreed. I would like to thank all honourable members.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Ms. Wowchuk). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the United Nations has declared
1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme,
"Indigenous People: a new
partnership"; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and
WHEREAS the elimination of all funding to
friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services
and programs provided, such as:
assistance to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially
disadvantaged, families in crisis, education, recreation and cultural
programming, housing relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance,
advocacy;
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Martindale). It complies
with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the
rules. Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the United Nations has declared
1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme,
"Indigenous People: a new
partnership"; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and
WHEREAS the elimination of all funding to
friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services
and programs provided, such as: assistance
to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially disadvantaged,
families in crisis, education, recreation and cultural programming, housing
relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance, advocacy;
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Santos). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the United Nations has declared
1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme,
"Indigenous People: a new
partnership"; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and
WHEREAS the elimination of all funding to
friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services
and programs provided, such as:
assistance to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially
disadvantaged, families in crisis, education, recreation and cultural
programming, housing relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance,
advocacy;
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* (1335)
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to table the Sixth Annual Report of the Manitoba Hazardous Waste
Management Corporation for the year 1992.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the
second State of the Environment Report for
MINISTERIAL
STATEMENTS
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I have a ministerial statement
for the House.
Mr. Speaker, today I wish to announce
changes to the Prescription Drugs Cost Assistance Program, commonly known as
Pharmacare. Before I advise the House of
the changes to the regulations, I would like to remind the members of the
reason for Pharmacare, which has been in place since 1975.
It is a program designed to assist
Manitobans with financial costs resulting from prescription drug therapy to
meet medical needs. It was not intended,
Sir, to provide for duplicate benefits to individuals, nor to stimulate
nonmedical increases in the utilization or purchase of prescription drugs or
the demand for more expensive drugs solely for the purpose of attaining
additional financial benefits.
Mr. Speaker, this is a program which cost
the taxpayers of
Today, I wish to inform the House that
Pharmacare receipts will be issued for the cash value of the prescription
only. This will mean the program will
continue to provide Pharmacare benefits to residents of
Pharmacare will curtail the current
practice of providing refunds to employers who may have a negotiated benefit
for 100 percent coverage of drug costs.
Current provisions will be grandfathered to the end of the Pharmacare
year during which the negotiated contract expires. Obviously, this change may have an impact on
future contract negotiations.
Pharmacists throughout the province will
be notified of the amendment which is intended to accomplish the
following: to prohibit duplicate
reimbursement of drug claims by Manitoba Pharmacare; to ensure that the
official Manitoba Pharmacare receipt is issued only for the amount paid by the
eligible person.
A key component of the changes to the
regulation is the information which will be provided on the official
receipt. It will no longer indicate the
prescription price, but will show the amount paid by the eligible person. If the individual pays nothing, then the
receipt must indicate that the amount paid was nothing.
In addition to notifying all pharmacists,
private insurers will be advised of the changes. This will ensure that administrative changes
can be made to eliminate duplicate costs, particularly at a time of scarce
resources to fund provincial drug, health and other programs.
The insurers will be offered two options: 1.
That the official Manitoba Pharmacare receipt can be submitted to and
retained by Pharmacare and will not be available to the private insurer; or 2. If the receipt is submitted to the private
insurer, it is stamped to indicate it has been processed and at what level of
benefit prior to its being sent to Pharmacare.
* (1340)
In conclusion, I want to reiterate there
should be no opportunity for personal gain nor should money from taxpayer‑supported
programs be used to enhance or offset the benefits achieved through
negotiations. Taxpayer‑supported
programs such as Pharmacare can only be maintained, Sir, if they are accessed
fairly and equitably by all Manitobans.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I note that it is somewhat
surprising that the minister should stand up and talk about changes in
regulations in one aspect to Pharmacare.
When the minister delists drugs, when the minister cuts off the
accessibility of the people of
It is a welcome change, Mr. Speaker, that
perhaps the minister from now on, when he changes regulations that
significantly affect the lives of Manitobans and the rights of Manitobans to
health care services and access of those services, maybe he will announce it in
this House and announce it to the people of
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the statement
of the minister, I know it is a change in regulation, something that the
minister‑‑I understand he had the opportunity to do some changes
for several years and did not do that.
We, on this side of the House, look for this government to continue our
Pharmacare program and not to cut it back as they have done in the last little
while.
We are getting dozens of calls in our
office weekly, Mr. Speaker, about the government position with respect to‑‑
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the government is
sensitive about their floundering in Pharmacare and about the kind of calls
that they are getting on Pharmacare, from their comments that are coming across
the way.
I would welcome this government‑‑if
this minister would now start issuing some public statements about what is
happening in health care, because this is a first, we welcome the opportunity
of the minister actually announcing a regulation in this House, something that
has not been done in the past and has been avoided by this minister time and
time again.
It is also ironic that this government
brings in legislation dealing with contractual arrangements that have been
entered into between parties, when this government is probably guilty‑‑the
first government in Canadian history to remove the rights of people in
collective agreements, to remove their rights in terms of The Labour Relations
Act in the form of legislation that is before this House. This government cannot negotiate so they run
the laws by legislation and by regulations.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased to respond
to this announcement.
Mr. Speaker, when the issue of Pharmacare
problems came up about three or four weeks ago, at that time the media brought
to our attention that the issue has been there for a number of years, but the
issue is of fairness to all Manitobans.
We are very pleased that the government
has come up with this proposal, because that will finally establish a fairness
for all people. As the minister has said
in his conclusion, the Pharmacare program, any socially funded program, is
based on the premise that taxpayers are paying so that each one of us has equal
access on an equal basis. So we are very
pleased. Also, we are very pleased that
the government is going to honour their commitment for the present
contract. When the new contract is going
to come, then the union can negotiate that part.
Mr. Speaker, this announcement really
tells us that things are changing. Now
we have seen by this move, plus the triplicate prescription program, the new
program the services commission is going to start with the
Mr. Speaker, it is a very positive
announcement. It was overdue and the
minister and the government have finally come up with it. I think other provinces are having a good
look at how we are dealing with health care in
* (1345)
Mr. Speaker, we have to make sure that we
protect our program. We have to make
sure that all people of
INTRODUCTION
OF BILLS
Bill 207‑The
Environmental Bill of Rights Act
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), that Bill 207, The Environmental Bill of Rights Act;
Loi sur la declaration des droits en matiere d'environnement, be introduced and
that the same be now received and read a first time.
Motion presented.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, I have been looking forward to
introducing this bill, and I have a draft with me. The purpose of this environmental rights
legislation is to ensure that citizens can act on behalf of the environment. A lot of thought has gone into this bill to
ensure that responsibility is placed where it belongs.
One of the provisions in the bill that is
most important will be whistle blowing, strengthening the provisions that will
allow workers to have action taken when their health in the workplace and in
the community generally is threatened.
Mr. Speaker, many people do not realize that already our environmental
legislation is reactive to complaints, and this would strengthen people's
ability to act on behalf of the environment.
The purpose of the bill is to shift the balance of power which is so
necessary to put power into the hands of citizens who are taking leadership and
setting the stage for change in our economy.
In closing, just let me say that this is
an important piece of legislation. It
has been introduced similarly in other provinces, and it is time that this
provincial government would take steps to lead on environmental legislation and
not follow. I hope all members of the House will give the bill serious
consideration and support.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have this afternoon
from
Also this afternoon, from the
Also this afternoon, from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you all here this afternoon.
* (1350)
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Immigrant Investor Fund
Audit
Release
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): My question is to the Deputy Premier (Mr.
Downey).
Mr. Speaker, in March of 1991, we asked
the government to investigate the situation with the Immigrant Investor Fund in
the
Mr. Speaker, the report that the minister
released in early January of this year indicates that: The provincial government is charged with the
responsibility of determining economic benefit and impact for the proposed
investments. Our review has indicated a
general lack of hard economic analysis and documentation on the specific
investment proposals outside of the information provided by the promoters.
My question to the Deputy Premier is: They have asked for five more audits of five
specific funds. Will the government release
those audits today and let Manitobans know the status of those investigations?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): As I have responded on previous occasions
in this House to a similar question, I indicated that once we receive all five
audits, we will be making a public statement at that time and making
appropriate information available.
To date, we do not have all five audits,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Doer: I would ask the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey)
whether the scope of the audits and the scope of the information will be
released to the public of
Will it include the disposition of funds
produced by the provincial or federal government to the various projects that
were co‑sponsored by the Immigrant Investor Fund, for example, grants
made by the provincial and federal governments through the federal‑provincial
tourism grants? Will it include the
disposition of those public funds in those audits, and will we know how the
disposition of those funds have taken place when the minister releases his five
audits?
Mr. Stefanson: I believe, Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the
Opposition well knows, the five audits‑‑and I have outlined the
five programs that are being audited to this House before‑‑revolves
around the distribution of the Immigrant Investor proceeds, all aspects, from
the original approval right through to the final distribution and completion of
the project.
So the short answer is, the focus is
clearly on the distribution of the Immigrant Investor Program funds, Mr.
Speaker.
Code of
Conduct
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): I am very disappointed in the minister's
answer, that he would not say or give us the assurance today that the
disposition of public funds in projects that were involved with the Immigrant
Investor Fund, the disposition of those public funds would not be also released
to the public.
I think the public has a right to know the
status of the money in the various investments that the government is
reviewing. I would encourage the
minister to change his position and release the disposition of those funds so
the public can be assured.
A final question to the Deputy Premier
(Mr. Downey): The Hong Kong Securities
Commission, in late February of 1993, has released a new code on the immigrant
investment schemes, Mr. Speaker. They
have released a new code of conduct, and it deals with various aspects of
Immigrant Investor Funds. It deals with
the issue of promoters who are out selling citizenship through visas and
investments on the one hand, and these very same promoters putting that money
in their own projects, on the other hand, and at the same time taking fees at
various different levels of those investment decisions.
I would like to ask the minister: Has he reviewed the new guidelines or code of
conduct produced by the Hong Kong Securities Commission, and what advice can he
give us on the value of these codes of conduct for investors outside of the
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I want to go back just very
briefly to the preamble of the Leader of the Opposition, when he talks about
the distribution of funds under other government programs. He well knows when that occurs, it is made
public at that particular point in time, whether it is a distribution under a
manufacturing industrial opportunity program, whether it is under any other
government program or whether it is under any of the federal‑provincial
agreements, whether it is tourism, forestry or whatever the case might be.
So those individual allocations are made
public at that time, and clearly the terms and conditions are made public as
well, Mr. Speaker. So if he has specific
questions on any project at any point in time, we are more than pleased to
answer that. I am not sure where he is
heading or what suggestion or allegations he is making.
On the issue of the Hong Kong Securities,
Mr. Speaker, again, I believe, as the Leader of the Opposition well knows, this
review of the Immigrant Investor Program has three main issues attached to
it. It has the five individual
audits. It has the overall audit that
was tabled in January of this year done by Deloitte and Touche, which we are
dealing with the federal government on in terms of building strength around the
Immigrant Investor Program. As the
Leader of the Opposition well knows, until those issues are addressed, there
will be no approval of any Immigrant Investor programs in
A part of that review is the information
he referred to as it relates to the current announcements of the Hong Kong
Securities Commission. A third issue
that is being addressed, Mr. Speaker‑‑it is the five audits; it is
the Immigrant Investor Program, and it is the issue of the freeze on the
Lakeview funds, on which again, an announcement should be made shortly.
* (1355)
Children's
Advocate
Recommendations
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, in Family Services Estimates on
April 20, earlier this week, as recorded in Hansard on pages 1871 and 1872, I
asked the Minister of Family Services three times if the new Children's Advocate
had made any recommendations to him about any area of concern in his
department.
I would like to ask the minister
again: Has the Children's Advocate made
any recommendations to this minister concerning cuts in the Department of
Family Services or any government policy in his department?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, yes, I acknowledge that the member did raise the question in Estimates
the other day, and the answer is yes. The
Advocate, in conversations with me on a number of occasions, has raised a
number of issues.
At the present time, as the member knows,
the office is just being set up, but in the meantime, the Advocate has met with
many groups, foster parents, agencies and others in the community. I meet with the Advocate on a regular basis,
and he has relayed the substance of those conversations to me.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, I specifically asked if he made any
recommendations. The minister refuses to
answer that. In fact, he answers in the
negative.
Foster
Family
Recommendations
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Will the minister admit that he has a letter
from the Children's Advocate in which the Advocate says, I have made a
recommendation to the minister recommending that cuts to basic maintenance fees
for foster families be reconsidered?
Will the minister acknowledge that he has received a copy of that
letter, and what is he going to do about this recommendation‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order please.
The honourable member has put his question.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I answered in the affirmative that yes, the Advocate has made
recommendations to me and brought me up‑to‑date on many of the
conversations that he has had.
In the letter that the member is referring
to, he has summarized conversations he has had with a number of foster parents
over their concerns. They are the same
concerns that foster parents have raised with me through their organization.
They are the same concerns that the foster
parents raised with me when I met with them on the steps of the Legislature.
Yes, the Advocate has indicated that it is of concern to him, the feelings that
foster parents have about our new financial relationship with them. It is a subject of ongoing discussions.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister
of Family Services what specific actions is he going to take to respond to
these recommendations from the Children's Advocate, in light of the fact that
he says that he is concerned that the needs of children may not be fully met
with the recent cuts and that he is concerned that if foster families do not
accept children, it will do irreparable damage to the Child and Family Services
system.
What action is this minister going to take
to correct the current situation in response to the recommendations of the
Children's Advocate?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, the issue is about rates, and I
would point out to the member that the rates have been dramatically increased
since the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) and some of his fellow travellers
were in cabinet, dramatic increase in rates since then. Our rates are $3 or $4 higher than some other
jurisdictions, amongst the highest in
Irrespective of that, there are issues in
the Child and Family Services area‑‑we have a number of initiatives
on the way. We had an opportunity to
talk the other day in Estimates about some of the reform issues that we are
proceeding with, and I tell the member again that
* (1400)
Bill 24
Consultations
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
My question to the minister responsible
for the Taxicab Board is, or can the minister tell this Chamber whom has he
consulted before bringing in this so‑called piece of legislation?
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the debate
on this bill when we move further with the discussion on that. The Taxicab Board is a quasi‑judicial
board which has basically been dealing with the many complex problems in the
taxicab industry, under the chairmanship of Don Norquay, who is also the Chairman
of the Motor Transport Board.
There have been all kinds of hearings and
input into the whole system of the taxicab industry over the past number of
years. I would like to think that under
the capable chairmanship of Mr. Norquay we have had a relative calm in the
taxicab industry for some time.
I have all the confidence in the chairman
that the proper consultation has taken place in terms of developing the act
that is before the House right now. I
would ask the member to wait until I give second reading to the bill to give
clarification to it and give the spreadsheets to the critics so they can look
and see what it is all about.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, under other circumstances, there
would have been a consultation that would have been done. This industry has been singled out time after
time‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for
The honourable member for
Justification
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I find it sort of ironical
that this member is getting so agitated and excited when he does not even know
what actually is happening in the bill.
If he has a little bit of patience, I
think maybe tomorrow, I can give second reading and maybe take and allay some
of the fears that he is sort of drumming up in his own mind right now.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, unlike the minister, I have read‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is:
Another aspect is that we are asking certified mechanics‑‑certified
mechanics are not good enough for the Taxicab Board. They have to be approved by the Taxicab
Board.
Again, are we going to see Workers
Compensation‑‑and now we are going to have Workers Compensation
saying if you are a doctor, you have to be on such and such a list? Why is that necessary?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I think the member has a bit of a
hearing problem. I have tried to
indicate in the two previous answers that the moment we have second reading, I
will clarify these things and explain this to the member.
Lest he has some kind of a health
condition developing with his agitation, I suggest that he maybe wait, and I
think possibly tomorrow, I will give second reading, and then I am prepared to
debate it with him.
Sugar Beet
Industry
Federal
Tariff Policy
Mr. Jack Penner
(Emerson): Mr. Speaker, as you know, the sugar beet
industry is an industry that has been of long‑standing duration in this
province, which came into existence some time in 1945. The reason it was brought into this province
was because this area lends itself well to sugar production, and the country of
As of the last number of years, the
federal government has refused to abide by the same rules, Mr. Speaker, as all
other 42 sugar‑producing nations in the world do, and has not allowed a
tariff to be applied on sugar coming into this country.
I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture
today, what action he has taken and what points he has raised with our federal
government, mainly the Minister of Agriculture and the Department of External
Affairs, to convince them that because of their unilateral action, we need the
federal government to take on the responsibility of ensuring that we will have
a sugar beet industry in this province and in
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the
member raises a very valid point. This
is the only country of 42 in the world that does not have a degree of sugar
policy on its border. What happens is
that cheap sugar gets dumped into the country, and it depresses the market
price for our sugar beet producers here in
Going back now over two to three years, I
have continually raised this with the federal minister. The federal minister had a special measures
committee, which we were represented on, which the growers were represented
on. Again, we advocated that a sugar
policy was important to maintain and stabilize the sugar industry in
To this point in time, no matter how many
times I raise it in meetings, federal‑provincial meetings, no matter how
many times we write letters, no matter how many times the growers ask the same
question, the federal position has been not to have a sugar policy‑‑in
other words, allow cheap sugar into the country and keep our market prices suppressed
here in western
Mr. Penner: Mr. Speaker, the federal government and the
provincial government have some responsibility to ensure that there is an
ability for farmers to maintain this growth industry and a very viable industry
as far as diversification is concerned.
I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture
whether he has tried to convince the federal government to apply the same
tariffs that the Americans apply, the 16‑cent‑a‑pound tariff,
on sugar coming into their country, and that we abide by the same rules in this
country that the Americans abide by under the Free Trade Agreement.
Mr. Findlay: Yes, I have, Mr. Speaker. I have constantly said that if we are going to
have a sugar policy, you should treat the country coming into here with sugar
the same way as they treat us going into their country, and that, most
particularly, applies to the
Taxicab
Industry
Consultations
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, in 1991, Judge Monnin ruled that
with respect to a study that was conducted by the Taxicab Board, and I will
quote from the judge's ruling: That the
compensation fund was clearly a significant component decision, and it would be
unfair to allow the board to now sever its decision and proceed only with the
increasing of quotas for taxis without having to implement at the same time its
compensation recommendation.
The minister and his department and the
Taxicab Board have refused to implement that recommendation, Mr. Speaker, for a
significant period of time.
My question for the Minister of Highways
and Transportation who is responsible for the board: Why has the minister refused to consult with
the industry on any changes that they may be bringing forward? Why has this minister refused to implement
the recommendation of Judge Monnin in his earlier decision?
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I think it would be totally
irresponsible if I interfered with the board and started dictating and by‑passing
the jurisdiction of the board in terms of what its responsibilities are.
I have all the confidence that the
chairman and the board that we have dealing with the taxicab industry are doing
a very capable job under very difficult circumstances, and I do not intend to
take and override the decisions of the Taxicab Board and start interfering from
my perspective.
Taxicab
Board
Court
Challenges
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): My question for the same minister, Mr.
Speaker: Why is this government now
changing its policy to restrict the taxicab industry members from going to
court to challenge Taxicab Board rulings, as we see by the new legislation that
this minister has brought forward to this House where the members challenging
now will only be able to challenge on the question of jurisdiction or law? Why is this government changing its policy?
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that
it is taxicab day in Question Period today.
The same answer would apply to this member as it applied to that member,
that when I bring forward second reading‑‑it is unusual that after
the first reading, we start having Question Period on a bill.
That is what second reading is about, and
that is what the debate is about. When I
bring in second reading, I will clarify those positions.
Bill 24
Intent
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): I am surprised the minister is getting so
worked up about this, Mr. Speaker. I am
sure it is an important issue to him as well.
Can the minister explain, is it the intent
of his new legislation to change the current Taxicab Board legislation to give
power to the Taxicab Board to permit it to have a show‑cause hearing
calling into question Unicity's right to exist as a business? Is that the intent of this legislation?
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, my answer is chekay, chekay
(phonetic), wait until second reading, and then I am prepared to go through the
whole issue.
* (1410)
Manitoba
Public Insurance Corporation
Reduced
Workweek
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister responsible‑
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, the repercussions of this
government's policy of arbitrarily reducing the workdays of the public service
this year will soon be felt by the people of
This will not be the case this year, I am
afraid. As a result, there will be
considerable inconveniences and additional costs to the public.
Mr. Speaker, can the minister of Autopac
confirm that all Autopac claim centres will be shut down tomorrow as a means of
meeting the government's directives to reduce the workweek of provincial
employees?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): Well, Mr. Speaker, the corporation has struck
a schedule of closings. As to each
individual centre, I could not apprise the member of the explicit situation
that he might be referring to, but the services, yes, will be shut down on
periods so that we can acquire the savings that we originally set out to
achieve.
I would hope that you would be encouraging
the public to work with us in acquiring that.
Manitoba
Public Insurance Corporation
Reduced
Workweek
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister does not
realize it, but all centres are shut down tomorrow throughout the province.
Will the minister tell us how many more
days of complete shutdown of all centres will occur this year, because I find
it ironical, Mr. Speaker, that the government is promoting Sunday shopping so
retail stores can open seven days a week, while at the same time, it is
depriving the public of basic insurance services by reducing the days of
operation from five to four days, and in one case, from four to three‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I look
forward to the member's contribution on Bill 22. He will have an opportunity tomorrow to
debate that bill.
Mr. Speaker, Crown Corporations Council
has asked all the Crowns to file with it a plan as to how it will be that they
will achieve certain savings following the model introduced under Bill 22. I do not believe that the Crown Corporations
Council has seen the plans of all the Crowns and specifically MPIC in this
case, so members of the Treasury bench will not know that as of this point in
time.
Manitoba
Public Insurance Corporation
Reduced
Workweek
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Well, perhaps the Minister of Finance can
answer the question, if not the minister of MPIC.
Mr. Speaker, would the minister explain
what is the rationale of arbitrarily imposing a reduction of 10 working days on
a commercial Crown corporation which has to function in such a way as to
maximize its revenues and services to the customers of
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Public Insurance Corporation
Act): Mr. Speaker, no matter how the member across
the way would like to slice it, or no matter how we would like to portray it,
the public sees this as a government being the main shareholder. It is a public service; in other words, a
Crown corporation. It is clearly linked
in the minds of the public, in my opinion, to the operations of government.
Yes, there will undoubtedly be some
concerns or inconveniences that may be raised as a result of this action, but
we are in very difficult and trying times and trying to achieve the savings that
we need in order to make this province competitive, and I am talking about
competitive in terms of the cost of the operations and the cost that we impose
on the public as requirements of mandatory insurance, and all of the other
services that government is involved in.
I really would encourage the member,
rather than to be critical, to be providing us with ideas that can help us
achieve those goals.
Community-Based
Role
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Health. There are some misconceptions
about the future role of
Mr. Speaker, there are discussions going
on between the hospital and the community at large to develop and redefine the
role of this hospital.
Can the Minister of Health tell this House
if his officials had any specific discussions about the new definition of the
role of
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,
specifically as to whether the ministry had discussions with Misericordia as to
their emerging role, no.
Mr. Speaker, in answer to the larger
question of some of the program investigations like ophthalmology and some of
the other major programs and how they can be delivered in the city of
I share my honourable friend's concern
over some of the rumours which do not have substance to them that cause concern
amongst employees, a concern amongst those who use
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, we met with some of the hospital
officials, and we were very impressed with the new role model they are
proposing in terms of the community‑based hospital.
Can the Minister of Health tell this House
if he will now set up a meeting between his Deputy Minister of Health and the
hospital officials to redefine their role and be specific, so that the hospital
employees can have some comfort that their jobs and community‑based care
will be protected and the name of
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, those initiatives are in the
planning process and are part of the process I alluded to in my first response,
namely the professional investigation and actually with the hospitals involved,
the associations, the physicians and even citizens involved, in terms of
planning the delivery of major surgical and medical programs throughout our
urban hospitals, as an offshoot of some of the Urban Hospital Council planning.
Misericordia has been very much a part of
that process. We are anticipating over
the next three to say four, five, six months a number of reports from these
study groups on individual programs to recommend how the system can accommodate
with greater meeting of client needs or consumer needs programs in
ophthalmology and other areas.
Ophthalmology
Program Location
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, both
Can the Minister of Health tell this House
when the final decision is going to be made on which hospital is going to get
the ophthalmology program?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, that is
exactly one of the program initiatives that I have referred to.
It is my understanding that the study
group has examined the possibility and how to implement a shift of the adult
ophthalmology program from Health Sciences Centre. The two candidate hospitals that are recipients,
or considered recipients, of course, are Seven Oaks, because they have had the
outpatient ophthalmology services for about six years now, I believe, or five
years, and Misericordia is also offering their hospital as a potential site.
Mr. Speaker, I have not received
recommendations from the committee which involves the physicians, the hospital
administrations, the MMA and others, so I cannot predict as to what the
recommendations and government's decision might be. We hope to be able to undertake that within
the next several months.
Waste
Reduction Regulations
Ms.
Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr.
Speaker, the larger debt that we owe as an economy is not the debt that the
government owes to the banks, it is our societal debt to the environment and
the pending costs of this waste.
Mr. Speaker, in our part of the world, our
challenge is to reduce waste and overconsumption and unfair distribution of
resources. In relation to this, my
question to the Minister of Environment is:
When are we going to see the regulations under The Waste Reduction and
Prevention Act? We have been waiting
five years for some action in this vein.
* (1420)
Hon.
Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest you should iscuss this with the beverage
container industry because they have been quite distraught about the
regulations that they are asked to operate under. In fact, that is an example of the powers
that are under that act in order to regulate certain areas of waste.
I should be most pleased to point out to
the House and to you, Mr. Speaker, that we are engaged in discussion with the
newspaper industry at this time as well, because it is one of the major
contributors in volume and tonnage to household private waste and general
municipal waste as a whole.
Those discussions are ongoing. I would think that while I appreciate her
encouragement, the industry out there might not agree with her appraisal.
Beverage
Container Deposit
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): For the same minister: Why is this government hesitant to implement
a deposit system that has been proven to work in other jurisdictions, and why
is the city of
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): First of all, as I
stated in the House about a week ago, there has been a deadline set in this
province for achievement of a certain level of return‑‑targets that
were agreed to and were stated publicly by this government. If those targets are not met by the 1st of
August, we are in a position to implement deposits or other comprehensive
methods of recycling.
As to the City of
Landfill
Site
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, there has already been two
extensions on those targets.
I would ask the minister, referring to
another target which is to reach 50‑percent reduction of waste to
landfills by the year 2000 and 20 percent by the year 1995: What progress have we made to these targets,
and how is the government measuring the progress in this area?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, we
believe that we may well be in excess of those targets at this point.
Certainly we believe that using the
indicators by which we established the first volume, and tracking those volumes
of materials that are being retrieved from the waste stream, that certainly we
will have no problem reaching the 1995 target, and the year 2000, we expect to
exceed it.
Sugar Beet
Industry
Government
Support
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Now that the sugar beet industry is on the
verge of collapse because farmers cannot afford to plant their crops without an
agreement signed by this minister, and the 90‑day layoff notice has been
given for plant closure by July 10, and the reason for this problem is lack of
action by this government to sign an agreement‑‑this is a quote by
the member for Virden in 1987.
Why was it so important to have an
agreement to support sugar beet growers in 1987, and why will he not sign an agreement
for the sugar beet growers today?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, back in
those days, the NDP government would not support sugar beet growers at
all. While we have been in power, we
have put in over $2 million of premiums to help the sugar beet industry. There is a deficit in the overall plan of
$10.4 million. Some of it will be borne
by citizens of
We have on the table an offer of up to 4
percent of stabilization money for sugar beet growers in
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, when we were in government, we
did negotiate a deal.
Sugar Beet
Industry
Government
Support
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I want to ask the Premier now, what has
his government done, when in 1987, he was concerned about the workers at the
sugar plant. What has he done to help
those workers now if the sugar plant‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, to demonstrate our commitment to
sugar beet producers‑‑and I might say that in 1987, the New
Democratic government would not even put in their 3 percent of premiums. That was the issue. They were not prepared to put in 3 percent premiums.
We have not only offered 3 percent, we
have increased it by a third to 4 percent premiums, which is a third better
than the offer that was made by the New Democratic administration after the
sugar beet producers went on strike.
There was the same process where the announcement was made on the
closure of the plant and everything else.
We have topped up that offer by a third to
show our commitment to the sugar beet producers. We think that is a reasonable offer, and we
are suggesting that the sugar beet producers take a good look at it.
Sugar Beet
Industry
Government
Support
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, in
addition to offering a pretty handsome stabilization offer this year, we are
stimulating the industry by giving them more if they grow 28,000 acres versus
24,000 acres. That can raise more
economic activity to the plant, more trucking.
The offer is on the table. We have offered it. It is there.
It is for producers to pick up.
The company can get out and issue their contracts, offer the seed. We have offered it. It is on the table. It is a hard and fast offer.
Education
System
Mainstreaming
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, the issue of mainstreaming in
the public school system is not being managed well at all. Teachers are becoming increasingly frustrated
with violent children in the classroom, and teachers are also feeling very put‑upon
by having to provide medical services to children with high medical needs.
I would ask the Minister of
Education: Does the minister agree that there
are many outstanding issues in regard to mainstreaming, and will she take some
action to address these serious issues which are having a daily impact in the
classrooms?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, the issue of mainstreaming is a very broad one. It does involve students who have special
needs who are in the school system, as well as students who have other needs of
a social, emotional and behavioural type as well. They all need assistance. We are working actively.
This year, we also have amended our
funding formula to include special support for emotionally and behaviourally
disordered young people which has never been provided. That funding has never been provided in the
past.
Department
Co-ordination
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Education
perhaps redefine "actively" for us?
She has an interdepartmental committee which has been meeting for over
five months to actually try to implement a plan so that services can be co‑ordinated
amongst departments.
Can the minister tell us: Is this report completed? Are the departments ready to implement‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, the work has been done between the Department of Education, the
Department of Health, the Department of Family Services and the Department of
Justice. Those four departments have
looked to the resources which they provide for Manitobans.
We have had to look at what the needs are,
the issues of accessibility, the services to be provided, and then we are
looking at how we can then best integrate those services or make sure that
Manitobans can access services which are available through different
departments in the most efficient way.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, with a final supplementary to
the minister: When can we expect to
actually see the recommendations implemented so that in fact there is a
positive impact on what goes on in the classroom. When?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, some work has already been done
in that way. We already have a 24‑hour
crisis team between the Department of Family Services and the Department of
Education.
There is work. There is co‑operative work already
being offered between the four departments, among the four departments or among
two departments around specific issues, I think, of young people with
behavioural disorders or who are perhaps involved with services such as
probation services and what their special needs are within the education
system.
There is work presently ongoing, and I
have also told the member that we are looking to complete that report as soon
as possible.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Wolseley has time
for one very short question.
* (1430)
Education
System
School
Dropout Rate
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we had the unusual
spectacle of a minister responsible for education either unwilling or unable to
discuss school dropout rates in
Would the minister tell us whether her
department accepts this number or whether they have another number which they use
in their planning?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, the number for students who have been termed "dropouts"
varies. The number varies from
Statistics Canada reports of 30 to 33 percent, to a number of 23 percent, to a
number of 27 percent, and it depends upon how the issue of dropout or the term
"dropout" has been defined because in some studies, the term
"dropout" does not allow for the fact that that student does
reintegrate into the school system in the following year and graduates
successfully.
So yesterday I did ask the member to
please define exactly that group of students that she was referring to as a
dropout, so that I could answer her question in the most appropriate way.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Mr. Speaker do now
leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of
the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty
with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for
the Department of Family Services; and the honourable member for
COMMITTEE
OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent
Sections)
FAMILY
SERVICES
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. This afternoon, this section of
the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the
Estimates of Family Services.
When the committee last sat, it had been
considering item 1.(c)(1) on page 54 of the Estimates book.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, in response to the member for Crescentwood's (Ms. Gray)
request on April 20 for information on the Manitoba Risk Estimation System, I
am pleased to table a package of documents describing the features of this
system. I have a copy for the other
critic as well.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just a reminder
that I have to leave early today. We had
agreement, I think, to perhaps go until about 4:15 or so. [agreed]
* (1450)
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I thank the minister
for that information. As I was telling
the deputy minister, it will not be read in the next week or so, but it
certainly will be read. So I do
appreciate receiving that information.
Just while we are on the Children's
Advocate, we ran out of time the other day and I did have a question about the
Lester Desjarlais inquest and the report.
I am wondering if the Children's Advocate has had an opportunity to
review that particular document. Is
there going to be a role for the Children's Advocate in response to the
recommendations that have been made for the department in terms of changes that
need to be made?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The answer to the first question is yes. The member may be aware that we have, with
the federal government and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, put in place a task
force which is currently under Wally Fox‑Decent and Marlyn Cox who are
currently doing some hearings.
We have also put in place, in response to
that, another group‑‑and I am just searching for the name now‑‑the
Service Appeal Panel, whereby the question of political interference or
interference of people in the work of the agency can be dealt with if there are
specific cases.
There will be a role for the department
and there will be a role for the advocate, as we have a chance to hear the
report of the task force and stay apprised of any issues that come before the
Service Appeal Panel.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 1.(c)(1) Salaries $172,800‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $111,300‑‑pass.
1.(d) Social Services Advisory Committee,
(1) Salaries $117,700.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, The Social Services
Administration Act and the staff who sit on part of the advisory committee‑‑could
we just get some information as to how many people sit on that committee? Approximately how often do they sit and for
what length of time? What is the per
diem rate paid to individuals who are part of the advisory committee?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I can start by answering some of those
questions. There are, I believe, 15
individuals who sit on that particular committee. They meet as a group of three when they have
a hearing. The hearing is triggered by
an appeal by a recipient. If they feel
that they have not had fair treatment in attempting to access social
allowances, either from the municipality or from the provincial office, there
is an appeal process, and once they make it known that they wish to appeal that
decision, that committee has to meet within 15 days.
A panel of three is put together, and they
will meet in whatever centre that the appeal hails from. Many days of the week there will be an appeal
hearing somewhere. The majority of the
cases are heard here in the city of
The member asked about the per diems, and
I am not sure what they are, but I think we have it here. It is broken down into a session because sometimes
they have two sessions a day. For the
chair it is $55 for the first session and $45 for the second session. For the membership it is $40 for the first
session of that day, and if there is a second session it is $35.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us: Are there basically standard per diem rates
across a number of these boards and commissions? How are these rates arrived at?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would say that my limited experience in
looking at different boards is that there is not a hard‑and‑fast
standard because I see different rates.
I guess the genesis of that is historical. It is what they have been paid in the past.
As far as I know, there has not been any change in some of these. I note that there are boards that govern
Crown corporations that I think have higher per diems. There are other boards where there is no
remuneration at all, mainly ones that the member sits on, ones that represent,
I guess, professional organizations and then in‑between there is an array
of per diems that are paid.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us: With the per diem rates for the advisory
committee or other boards or commissions within the jurisdiction of his
department, was there a corresponding decrease in per diem rates of 2 percent
or 4 percent, similar to the across‑the‑board 2 percent decreases
and the 4 percent or 3.8 percent salary decreases for civil servants?
Mr. Gilleshammer: If I recall the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) speaking to the legislation, Bill 22 does speak to the boards and commissions
as well.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us of the number of the
appeals that were heard, I suppose, at the last fiscal year end? Out of those appeals how many of them were
upheld?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The last full year I have here is '91‑92,
and there were 1,229 appeals heard and 65 of them were allowed. The vast majority of those are social
allowances. I just wanted to point out
that this appeals body also hears some daycare appeals.
Ms. Gray: Does the minister have any information about
those 65 appeals that were upheld? Is
there sort of a pattern as to reasons why appellants were successful? Do they fall into different categories at
all?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, there is a variety of reasons why they
are upheld. As you know, at the municipal
level, the municipal jurisdictions all act independently and make a decision on
their understanding of the legislation or their by‑laws, and there are
times when there may be information that they have not considered. The client may then be successful in the
appeal. If there is any new information
that they can bring forward, sometimes that makes a difference.
Ms. Gray: Is there one particular area of the province
or municipality that has more appeals than others, and then also more appeals
that are upheld?
* (1500)
Mr. Gilleshammer: There does not seem to be any pattern. As I indicated, most of the appeals, I
believe, are here in the city of
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am wondering if we
could entertain questions on the Child Advocate. I was here, and of course
because of the minister having to speak to the media, I had stepped out as
well, and I am wondering if we could just hold this line and go back to the
Child Advocate's office for questions.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I would, out of co‑operation; I
understand you were here. I will do
that.
Mr. Ashton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, and there
may also be some questions on the line that we are currently dealing with, so I
am just suggesting if we can leave it open.
What I want to ask in terms of the Child
Advocate's office is in relation to the letter that was written by the Office
of the Children's Advocate‑‑pardon me‑‑by the
Children's Advocate, Wayne Govereau, which was discussed today in Question
Period, which I have a copy of dated April 2, to a number of individuals in
regard to the impact of the cuts to foster families that have been introduced
by this government and concerns expressed about that.
In looking through the letter, I think the
Office of the Children's Advocate is very clear. In fact, the concern is stated that the cuts
will potentially have a negative impact on children. The letter states very clearly: I have made a recommendation to the minister
in recommending that the cuts to basic maintenance fees be reconsidered.
I would just like to ask the minister,
very clearly on the record, what his position is now that the Children's
Advocate has called for reconsideration of those cuts in basic maintenance
fees? Will the minister now follow on
the recommendation of the Children's Advocate and reconsider those fee cuts?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The letter summarizes a meeting, a discussion
that the advocate had with a number of foster parents, where they have reviewed
the concerns that they have expressed to me and expressed to the department
over the adjustment of the rates. It is
a wide‑ranging overview of issues that the Foster Family Association has
been dealing with from time to time. The
change in the rate is a budgetary decision, as the member is aware, not out of
line with budgetary decisions that impact on the school system, the hospital
system and other groups that are getting grants from the provincial government.
In looking at our decision, and I have had
a chance to speak further with both the advocate and the department on the
rates and an opportunity to review where the
Mr. Ashton: I want to make it very it clear, because I
think the minister has perhaps not read the letter in its entirety, or
certainly not recently, because if one reads the letter, it is clear that the
Children's Advocate goes far beyond merely relaying concerns.
Indeed, the first page of the letter
starts off outlining the concerns, and I can read it into the record if the
minister wants. I can table the
letter. Perhaps the minister can table
his copy if he wishes, but there is no doubt if one looks at the statement that
is in this letter, and I will quote from‑‑I will quote the first
two sentences in their entirety because I think it is important not to take
things out of context. The Children's
Advocate says in the letter: I recognize
the need of government to be concerned about the deficit facing this
province. However, as an advocate for
children, I am concerned that the needs of children may not be fully met with
recent cuts.
It continues with his other statements,
but, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is no doubt in my mind in reading that‑‑and
I read it out, the minister can read any other aspect of the letter. I am quite prepared, as I said to read the
entire letter into the record. There is
no doubt in my mind the Children's Advocate has gone well beyond reflecting
concerns that were expressed to him by the five individuals to which this
letter is addressed.
The Children's Advocate said, as an
advocate for children, I am concerned that the needs for children may not be
fully met with recent cuts. It then goes
on further‑‑I will make it very clear; it is not just a question of
stating the concern‑‑saying: for your information, I had made a
recommendation to the minister recommending that the cuts to basic maintenance
fees be reconsidered. The Children's
Advocate is concerned about the impact and wants them reconsidered. That is the Children's Advocate, not the five
individuals, not the Foster Family Association.
This is from the Children's Advocate's office, and, quite frankly, I
feel this is extremely significant.
You know, I would hope the minister would
listen to the foster parents. I have
talked to many foster parents. They feel
the minister is making a serious mistake. I had a public meeting in Thompson, and there
were some very emotional moments there from people who are really concerned
about what this minister and this government are doing.
Now, I just want to relate a particular
incident that I think is really indicative.
It came from someone who was not a foster parent or a foster kid. She has been trying to get treatment for a
condition that she has had difficulty in receiving, and I have been working
along with many people with the Department of Health to try and get her the
treatment. She said to me, and she said
this in a number of meetings that we have had, that her condition goes right
back to when she was abused as a child, and she has told me‑‑and
this is in private conversation just on Tuesday in Thompson after this public
meeting‑‑she came over and said, you know, I really support the
foster families. She said, if I had had
the opportunity to be in foster care when I was a kid, maybe this would not
have happened to me, the kind of psychiatric disorder that she has currently.
So it is the foster parents; it is foster
kids; ex‑foster kids who are concerned; it is people in the social
service field because I have talked to many people in my own community who
certainly have expressed to me privately, directly that they are concerned
about the impact of what is happening.
Now it is the Children's Advocate, not just expressing concerns, but
saying, reconsider these decisions and the needs of children may not be fully
met with the recent cuts.
* (1510)
You know, I want to continue to ask the
minister to reconsider, based not on my statements but on the statements I have
just read into the record, the statement made by the individual I talked to,
the concerns expressed generally, because I think the minister has missed the
point. The minister keeps talking about
what is done in this province and what is done in that province and what is
done in the other province.
We have led the way in a lot of areas, Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, in this province.
When I say "we" I mean collectively, I am not saying one
political party or another. We can get
into that debate at another time. We
used to have the best child care system in the country in terms of both funding
and standards. I am concerned there may
be some erosion because of the moves of the government that may affect child
care, but that is an example where we are well ahead.
Home care‑‑I use that as
another example. We have a system that
is a model for
I think the moves that have been made in
terms of foster parents are important.
The agreement, throughout the 1980s, progressively went from recognizing
the need for an association‑‑yes, an advocacy group‑‑and
also recognizing the need for expansion of the rates for foster children and
recognizing that this was an investment, in the sense that it would get more
kids into foster homes, rather than in institutions.
I am using this because when I hear the
argument made that, well, this province does this, this province does the
other, I think that misses the point. We
have a good system. It is effective in
terms of social policy and it is effective in terms of costs. Then, we should be leading the way.
By the way, with the implementation of the
cuts, we will not have the highest rates.
I know there have been negotiated agreements in other provinces that
will impact over a period of time.
So I guess what I am asking the minister
is to put aside the communications spin, the argument that somehow this is all
a matter of relative rates and the rest of it, and deal with the social issues
and deal with the economic issues.
I am asking him to deal directly, right
now, with the Children's Advocate. To my
mind, the Children's Advocate‑‑and we have had debates over the
reporting mechanism and various different things, significant debates over the
last year or two. This is an important position; it is an important
function. Here the Children's Advocate
is saying very clearly, I am concerned that the needs of children may not be
fully met with recent cuts; I have made recommendation to the minister
recommending that the cuts to basic maintenance fees be reconsidered.
You cannot get more direct than that. The Children's Advocate is saying the
government has made a mistake. That is
my interpretation. Anyone who reads the
letter can only come to the same interpretation.
I am asking the minister, putting aside
the arguments‑‑and we will get into that, relative this and
relative that‑‑how can the minister proceed with the cuts, proceed
with the destruction of the Foster Family Association, when the evidence is so
clear that he and his department and this government are making a significant
mistake? How can he not review the
decision, in light of the fact that the Children's Advocate's office‑‑the
Children's Advocate, period‑‑has said, review it?
That is all we are asking for at this
point in time, because I really believe if there is a review done, an objective
review, it will show that the government made a mistake. So I am asking the minister, what is so
unreasonable in having this ill‑considered decision revisited and
hopefully having those cuts reinstated?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member started by
talking about emotional moments that he has had in speaking with foster
parents. I can say that I think all
members of the Legislature who speak with foster parents and understand the
role they play in parenting children who come from dysfunctional families will
hear heart‑rending stories. You
hear from adults who were foster children and the love and comfort that was
given to them by foster families. It is
not an issue, to say that people do not recognize the tremendous work and
support that foster families give to children within the
At many events that we have hosted in this
building for the Foster Family Association, we have spoken frequently about
them being the backbone of the system of child welfare in
The member talks about other areas of
social programming that government is responsible for. I say to him that governments across this
land, across this continent, are reviewing social programming that takes place
within their jurisdictions. We have made
budget decisions in this particular budget to ask a number of the boards,
organizations such as school boards, hospital boards, agencies that receive
government grants to do with less in this next budget year. This applies to foster parents as well.
The member talks about the great strides
that have been made in the rates for foster parents in
What has happened, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
across this country is that we have debt loads and we have rates that
governments simply cannot sustain. The
Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer) in Question Period has frequently
said that there are very, very tough decisions out there to be made. This government has made some of those tough
decisions in as fair and equitable a manner as we could. Many organizations that rely on funding from
government are going to be doing with a little bit less.
I know the member says, well, do not
compare with other provinces. Do not be
concerned with what other provinces are doing, but in establishing the value
for the service, no matter what that service is‑‑and I suspect that
the member perhaps at some point in his career was doing some negotiating over
salaries or rates or whatever‑‑comparisons to other jurisdictions
are one of the ways you determine whether your rate is appropriate or not. When we looked at our rates over the last
year, our rate in
* (1520)
In one of the reductions that we have had
to make in this budget‑‑and you know we have said that we do not do
these reductions with any glee, but the fiscal situation of the province is
such that we have to make major adjustments.
I have indicated, and I know the member agrees, that the government of
So, yes, we have had to make some
difficult decisions. The member even
referenced child care and says that
The member mentions the grant to the
Foster Family Association. The Foster
Family Association has currently contacted our department with plans, which
they are looking for support for, to have the Foster Family Association become self‑sufficient. It is the subject of some meetings that are
currently taking place.
I think it is important to point out to
the member that the functions that were provided in terms of legal costs and in
terms of insurance are still there.
We have also asked the agency, and
provided funding for them, to not only look after the recruiting and licensing
of foster homes, but also to be involved with the training of foster families,
which is a fit that I have long felt is the appropriate thing to do. Those agencies that have daily and weekly contact
with the foster families now will also be responsible for the training
component.
I think it is important that the member
look at the context of the decisions that we have had to make and recognize
that governments across North America are facing the same dilemma, as revenues
are flat or declining, as costs are escalating, and that government no longer
has the access to the types of revenue that was possible in the 1970s and
1980s. The obvious choices are that you
either start increasing taxes like other jurisdictions are doing, and the
member is saying that is what we should be doing‑‑
An Honourable Member: What you did, I said.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, we have not increased the income tax,
the sales tax or the corporate tax. You
know that there are other jurisdictions that have gone from 7 percent to 11
percent and 9 percent. That is an option
that we looked at, that we rejected. The
result is that we have to make some tough choices‑‑choices that
have some fairness to them, choices that impact on all members of society and
all departments, and we have done that.
We have not come to these decisions
lightly. We have reviewed the decisions
that we have made, and we have made a commitment to monitor the changes that we
have brought into place.
The budget which was passed on Monday,
with the support of the majority of the members of the House, is the one that
we have presented to the agencies, to the public. It is the one that we are going to stay with.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I just have a number
of comments. First of all, the minister
did not answer the question. I asked
very specifically in terms of the Children's Advocate's letter, and I hope the
minister will answer.
I want to deal with some of the rather
cryptic comments the minister put on the record, and I, quite frankly, am just
amazed. The minister said, and this is a
direct quote: "Many organizations .
. . are going to be doing with a little bit less."
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the Foster Family
Association had its entire grant eliminated.
So did 56 other groups. We are
not talking about a 5 percent cut or a 10 percent cut. We are talking about a 100 percent cut. Now if the minister is going to try and
defend that, that is fine, but let us not put statements like that on the
record. We could continue the Budget
Debate if the minister wants, but if the minister expects anyone to believe
that this government has not increased taxes‑‑I mean, if you go in
and you buy a meal for under $6 under the new tax system, you are going to pay
tax on it of 7 percent, in addition to the GST, which currently you pay nothing
on.
There are a whole series of items which
are having the sales tax apply to them.
If that is not a tax increase, I do not know what it is. The government can try and redefine what a
tax increase means, but everybody I have talked to says, yes, taxes are going
up. Some, by the way, agree with the
government. Some agree with the
opposition. There are different views,
but I have not found one person yet outside of the Tory caucus that has not
said, yes, taxes are going up. So let us
call it for what it is and not try and deal with it in terms of these kinds of
attempts to reinvent the language‑‑you know, user fees become
contributions; expanded retail sales taxes and property tax credits become less
disposable income in the pocket.
I remember the minister saying that
services that used to be provided‑‑not this minister, the Minister
of Education (Mrs. Vodrey)‑‑in Dauphin are now available in
With the poverty rate, the government now
wants to reinvent the poverty rate. I heard
the Premier (Mr. Filmon) say that the poverty rate is not really a fair measure
of what is going on in
You just cannot go on reinventing things,
attaching a new label to it and trying to avoid the reality. The reality is a tax increase is a tax
increase, a user fee is a user fee, a cut is a cut. That is really what the debate should boil
down to. Let us strip aside the attempts to change the terminology and the rest
of it.
Indeed, there are tough choices and all
governments are faced with tough choices.
That is what the real debate is about in this House‑‑the
priorities and the choices that were made.
We have said right from the beginning that this was wrong, particularly
the combined impact in terms of the rates.
By the way, if the minister will check
back into what happened in negotiations starting in '87 and '88, I was the
first one to say that rates were too low in 1987. I said so at the time. In fact, a lot of the process that developed
in the mid‑1980s was working in partnership with the Foster Family
Association. The minister should know,
in fact, may remember when the initial process began in terms of Maureen
Hemphill, later led to agreements that have now, as in the case of collective
agreements, been broken. That is one
thing that does bother foster families.
The second thing is in terms of the
association itself. I find that the
concern over direct service and advocacy is a bit interesting, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson. I am convinced that this
government has two categories of organizations.
If they are advisory, that is okay.
If they are advocates, that is not okay.
We had that debate with the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Mrs.
McIntosh). We had that debate with the
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer).
But, I, quite frankly, think the only difference between when a group is
considered advisory and when a group is considered an advocacy group is when
they are advisory, the government likes the message it hears. When it does not like the message it hears,
they are advocates. That is the only
difference. That really, to my mind, is
the only difference.
* (1530)
The principle of having, foster parents in
this case, being able to have an organization that can work in the interests of
foster parents and having someone to represent them I think is the principle at
stake. I believe the funding cuts‑‑and
I hope there will be; in fact, I know the Foster Family Association will
continue. I know they will continue in
some form.
The bottom line is, as they have said‑‑a
lot of this goes down to, in the case of the organization, the question of
power in the sense that the government did not want to even face the
accountability which, to a certain extent, requires a greater sharing of power
than has previously been there. But, you
know, we can get into all the various issues, the political issues. We can redebate the budget. We can argue what is a tax increase and what
is not and the rest of it.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
The question I asked was in regard to the
Children's Advocate. In fact, when I
talk in the context of these other issues, I am quite prepared to debate the
minister in terms of what other provinces are doing and what is happening
elsewhere. What I said is, put that aside.
My attempt was not to blame the government for everything that is
happening or not to blame the government.
That was not the point.
It was to put those items aside and deal
with this letter, because this letter is very clear. The Children's Advocate's office is saying,
review the decision. It says, and I will
repeat it again, I am concerned that the needs of children may not be fully met
with recent cuts.
That is the bottom line. That is what we have been saying, and that is
what foster families have been saying, by the way, too.
I attended a meeting in Thompson of the
foster families at their request. I have
sat down with foster parents, and they are concerned about the kids. There are a lot of other concerns, as well,
but that is their bottom‑line concern.
Now the Children's Advocate is saying that they are right. The foster families, the foster parents are
right. I guess what makes me wonder here
is, what role does the Children's Advocate's office have if the minister
getting probably the clearest of feedback on an issue‑‑I mean, you
could not get any clearer. How many
times do we have to read it in the record?
I am concerned the needs of children may not be fully met with recent
cuts.
Does the Office of the Children's Advocate
not have any influence with this government?
It is an easy way out for them. When you make a decision, it is hard to
admit when you have made a mistake. I
will be the first one to say that. I am
sure when we were in government there were lots of times when it was pretty
tough to admit, yes, we made a mistake. [interjection] Indeed, the Minister of
Northern Affairs is an excellent example of making mistakes. He has made enough of them, as well. So have we all. It is tough to say, yes, I made a mistake and
maybe we should reconsider. The new
governments do this all the time. Sometimes it requires a little bit of face
saving. Sometimes it requires, not the
opposition to say you made a mistake, but it requires maybe someone else to say
you made a mistake.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the
Children's Advocate is saying, in other words, Mr. Minister, you made a mistake. So what is so difficult now to say‑‑you
do not even have to say you made a mistake.
You can just say that we had not considered all the facts. We will not ask for an apology or that. All we are asking for is, why not take the
advice of the Children's Advocate's office and, at a minimum, reinstate the
cuts to the rates for foster children and reinstate at least some of the
funding for the Foster Family Association because I think that is related,
although the main focus here is on rates, to be fair. It is not on the Foster
Family Association per se. Why not do
that? Why not do what I think most
reasonable people would do in the situation.
I think if you asked most people on the street and they got a letter
from an office that is as significant as this office is in terms of its role
within legislation and with as significant a mandate as being concerned about
the welfare of children in Manitoba, why not just take the advice of the
Children's Advocate, and whether you admit it or not, reverse the cuts and
reinstate funding for the Foster Family Association.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I would like
to respond to some of the preamble as well.
I know the member will want to hear some of my comments on that. I at no time wanted to mislead him that the
Foster Family Association cut was not 100 percent. I am saying that there were general cuts
across all departments and acknowledge that some organizations and associations
lost a hundred percent of the funding that government provided.
The member secondly went on to talk about
increases in taxes. What we have
indicated is that there has not been an increase in the three major taxes: the rate of the sales tax, the rate of income
tax which in fact went down in the first and second year of this
administration, and the corporate tax which I know is always the handy answer
for NDP governments because they say that is where the wealth is and that is
where we should get the jobs. What the
member does not realize is that other socialist governments like the government
of
In addition to those things, when we came
to government there was also a payroll tax which was a tax on jobs. The member says there still is, and that is
because of the very high rate of that tax that the previous government was
accessing in government at that time.
While we have made a commitment to do away with that tax, we have not
been able to do it all at once. This
year an additional, I think, 900 small businesses will no longer pay that
payroll tax and already people are phoning and saying, now this is an
opportunity to hire more staff, to expand my business. That was the most regressive
tax that any government ever brought in.
We have not only maintained the levels of the major taxes, we have
actually reduced them in some areas.
The member wants to talk about the poverty
rate, and certainly there is lots of room for discussion there as learned
people attempt to say that this is the level of income that someone needs for
their basic needs. What Statistics
Canada sometimes does not recognize is that the cost of living varies
dramatically from a province like Manitoba to southern Ontario or British
Columbia, and do not ever take that into consideration. The last statement that
I read on this indicated that a family of four living in Toronto needed an
income of $30,000 or they were living below the poverty line, and they are
saying that same level of income applies to every Canadian. That simply is not true. It will not hold up. People are not trying to reinvent ways of saying
there is not any poverty in this country, but I think there is an honest debate
going on to determine what an actual poverty line is.
Many people in my constituency live on
much less money than that. They do not
consider themselves living in poverty.
They do not consider that they need assistance from government. It is a debatable issue. [interjection] The
member says rural costs. I think we have
some agreement then that you cannot just make a standard in
The member said, yes, there are tough
choices, and I would challenge him to indicate‑‑and I have
challenged his Leader, and I have challenged the critic of the NDP party who
looks after this department‑‑to offer up some choices, to tell us
what some alternatives are.
There has not been one alternative that
has come forward from this member or this party to say this is where Family
Services could spend less; this is where Family Services could redirect some
income. And that is really what we are
talking about when we talk about whether rates are correct or not, that there
are competing interests within government, competing interests between
departments.
There are competing interests within the
Department of Family Services where we determine what is the appropriate rate
for foster parents; what is the appropriate rate for social allowances
recipients; what is the appropriate rate for people who access day care
subsidies; what is the appropriate rate for the work we do with the mentally
handicapped‑‑all of those are competing interests.
I have said in Estimates before that there
are many places where we could spend our next million dollars, and certainly in
many cases we have programs that need additional dollars, but because of the
demand of programs that are statutory programs, it is very difficult to
redirect those dollars.
* (1540)
There have been no alternatives put
forward by this member or the critic from the NDP to say that there is an
ability to save money within Family Services in one area so that we can redirect
it to another area, [interjection] And yes, across government. You know, the
member goes back to the age‑old solutions of the party he represents and
wants to take money from certain areas, but I am saying within the Department
of Family Services, where we have a budget that is nearing $700 million and has
seen the largest increases in the last number of budgets of any department in
government. I have already indicated the
dramatic increases‑‑[interjection] Well, the easy thing is to say
it is welfare.
I have already told you that we have
doubled the funding for child care from when the member was in government
before. We have seen a 65 percent
increase in the Social Allowances line.
I am meeting with colleagues from
We have staff within every department who
advocate for projects, who advocate for particular needs within that
department, but as I have indicated, there are competing interests within the
department about where we spend that next dollar.
These decisions are extremely difficult. The member references a phrase from the
letter saying: we are concerned about
kids. This department is extremely
concerned about vulnerable Manitobans.
That is whom we work with. That
is where our funding goes, to vulnerable people. We are not only concerned about children; we
are concerned about vulnerable adults.
We are concerned particularly about vulnerable adults that are living
with a mental disability, and we are bringing forward a piece of legislation in
this session to deal with that.
We are concerned about the daycare budget
and demand in daycare which is currently outstripping our ability to finance
that. I might point out in that
particular area, we have seen a dramatic increase not only in funding but in
licensed spaces that are in the system that conform to those high standards we
talked about a little while ago; also the tremendous emphasis now on subsidies
that we have been meeting.
We are still giving an increase in that
line, print over print, from last year.
So these are the competing demands, and the member says: well, you should not look at other provinces,
that when he was in the caucus in the days of the Pawley government, he
disagreed with his government and the rates that existed then and fought for
it.
Well, all I can say is, I am sorry you
were not successful, that those rates were not increased and those rates have
now increased, and increased dramatically.
Yes, and they have gone back.
I do not take any delight in saying that
we have to offer less to those foster families and families that look after
foster children. But it is one of those
difficult decisions. We do not take any
delight in saying to school divisions that you are going to do with 2 percent
less and less funding for hospitals and less funding for a lot of things.
The member from Crescentwood (Ms. Gray)
brought up the whole idea of capital projects the last day we were here. We are trying to maintain our capital
budget. There are cuts in that area as
well. But again you have to look at the
big picture, the $5 billion or $6 billion of debt, and the track that we do not
want to get on so that we have that $16 billion that
So this budget is one that, even though it
is very difficult‑‑and I really admire the leader of the NDP (Mr.
Doer) for acknowledging that many times the difficult choices had to be
made. You know, I again would ask what
options there are within this department, where we could find those savings.
Even with some of the difficult decisions
we have made and the reductions in funding, we are still going to show nearly a
5 percent increase in our budget line this year. I think that is remarkable given the flat
revenues and the high interest payments we have to make on the debt.
So we are concerned with kids and
concerned with all of the people who access the funding from this department.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Maybe we would be able to proceed a little
more quickly if we could get a sense from this minister, then, what his
definition of poverty is and how many people, according to that definition,
live below the poverty line in the
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I would point out that we were moving
quickly, and have passed the line on the Child Advocate and came back to it
because her colleague was away and have discussed that. Are we now moving on to the next line?
Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis:
No, I would like to still pursue some
questions on the Child Advocate line which the minister has so kindly agreed to
return to.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Fine, we will talk about a definition of
poverty then, and I would say to the member that I do not think there is a
great consensus out there of what that definition of poverty is. We see different statistics coming from
Statistics Canada. We see the low‑income
cutoffs. We hear definitions brought
forward by what I am sure the member would characterize as right‑wing
forums, and I think somewhere in‑between there is an answer.
But that poverty line, and the point I was
trying to make, cannot be determined in downtown
* (1550)
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that kind of line
is a very effective tool on the part of the government for, No. 1, ignoring the
questions raised by opposition, raised by community groups right across this
province, but also an effective way for this government to avoid the serious
impact of its policies. All through this
dialogue I have been sitting here listening and hearing the minister suggest we
have to balance out the tough decisions that have to be made and we have to
look at the deficit and we have to balance that in the context of the needs of
our citizens, all the while refusing to address the fact that this budget and
this department's Estimates have a very disproportionate impact on the poor, on
the vulnerable and on the most hard‑pressed members of our society
today. That is the issue that has to be
dealt with before we can sort through all the details of a department's budget
like the Department of Family Services.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
If the minister and this government do not
recognize the disproportionate impact of his budget and his decisions on a
select group in our society, we are not going to be able to get very far at
all. It is not just something that has
come from the opposition. It is not
rhetoric from a small group in society. It is now a recognized fact on the part
of many in our society.
I would refer the minister to a column in
the Free Press of just a couple of weeks ago, not by Frances Russell, but by
Val Werier, whom I think the minister would be inclined to listen to and to
hear his words. He says, and I
quote: No one denies that the deficit
has to be tackled, but there is a streak of unreality in the way the provincial
government has gone about reducing it. It does not seem to recognize it is
stepping on the poor and the vulnerable.
It is acting in a shameful manner in insisting that the weakest in
society bear part of the burden.
Mr. Werier goes on to specifically address
budget decisions that relate directly to the Minister of Family Services and
his department‑‑Child and Family Services cutbacks, changes with
respect to foster parents, change in terms of social assistance rates, and so
on. It is that issue and that reality
that has to be established at the outset of any discussion of Estimates if we
are going to be able to find some way to have a dialogue and find some way to
achieve what is in the best interests of those who have been hit the hardest by
the general economic situation and by the decisions of this government.
I want to ask the minister if he at least
recognizes a couple of things: No. 1,
the statistics that have been repeated and presented over and over again by a
number of organizations about the rate of poverty in Manitoba and specifically
the rate of child poverty in Manitoba.
Does he accept the data showing the shocking statistics having
Number 2, does he accept the recent
statistics from Winnipeg Harvest showing the number of people and specifically
the number of children who use food banks on a monthly basis? Does he accept, at least as a starting point,
the fact that approximately 13,000 children use food banks every month? Related to that, does he accept the Premier's
(Mr. Filmon) views, as expressed two days ago, that food banks are here to stay
and governments can do little about the incidence of hunger? Where does he stand on those issues, so that
we can then have an understanding about the ability of the Child Advocate to be
able to make recommendations to this government and have those recommendations
listened to and acted upon?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Before the minister answers that question, I
want to inform all members that we have already dealt with the Children's
Advocate. It has been passed.
We allowed the honourable member for
Thompson (Mr. Ashton) to come back to it when he came in, but I will not allow
us to remain flowing throughout and coming back to issues on and on again. We are dealing on a line‑by‑line
basis. I will allow the minister to
answer this question and then I will revert to another line.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this department of
course is responsible for that basic safety net that provides assistance to
Manitobans through either the municipal welfare or the income security provided
to provincial recipients. I find it
interesting that the member who sat around the cabinet table in the previous
decade for a brief period was there when government revenues were going up by
double‑digit figures yet the increase to social allowances did not
correspond with that. We have made every
effort since we formed government to have the rates reflect the cost of living
and have done that on a consistent basis.
The member also does not take into
consideration the many enhancements that in the last three years we have put
into the system to assist those recipients who access social allowances, and I
would just take the opportunity to review a few of them because I know the
member is quite interested. Two years
ago we put into place a program called Income Assistance for the Disabled. Now this was an issue, I am sure, that the
member was concerned with in the 1980s when she sat at the cabinet table, but
that is where her work ended, with concern, and did not do anything about
it. This was a group that most other
provinces provided a special supplement for, and in last year's budget for the
first time ever we put in a supplement of $60 per month and in this budget.
I know that the member is interested in a
number of departments and may not be aware of the fact that we increased that
particular monthly assistance by $10 to $70 a month. I am just wondering where the member's
concerns were in the 1980s when she had an opportunity to do something about
that. This is an enhancement that was
long overdue that this government brought in last year, and with our current
budget, it has a cost of some $9 million to the provincial treasury.
Last year we also introduced the supplementary
benefit so that individuals who are on the provincial system were able to
access their tax credits in a more timely way and have the benefit of using
that entire tax credit rather than have it go to tax discounters. Another enhancement that was met with general
acceptance and something that her colleague the critic for Family Services at
one point in time was very much in favour of.
We also brought in some assistance for school supplies for children in
social allowance households that was not there before.
An Honourable Member: Is the 7 percent tax going to go on there?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I am pleased that the member for
As well, we made a decision on the goods
and services tax that the federal government flows back to social allowance
recipients and exempted that and made the decision not to count that as income. As well, in June of 1991 an exemption of
$25,000 was established for children's trust fund assets. Again, not a new issue but one that the
member for
* (1600)
Another long‑standing issue that was
brought to us by the SACOM group, the Social Allowance Coalition of Manitoba,
and the WORD group, who pointed out to us that our liquid asset exemption level
was far lower in Manitoba and historically had been than other jurisdictions. Effective last April, April of '92, we made
some dramatic increases in that particular area. Again, the member for
Earlier the member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton) said, well, you should not make any interprovincial comparisons. You should do what is right in your own
province. Again, I think interprovincial
comparisons are a reality, and the rates we have been able to increase in
I might mention in Ontario those rates
were frozen for the first three months of this last budget year, and social
allowance recipients there were not allowed to access any more money in terms
of those rates in the months of January, February and March. As well, there is a lot of new thinking going
on in social allowances across this country where, again, I hate to use
President Bill Clinton is also saying the
same thing. This is not Ronald Reagan we
are talking about or George Bush. This
is President Bill Clinton who is saying that we have to do something about the
drain on national resources. Again, the
member for
I will tell you, the thinking in this area
is very fluid out there, and people are searching for solutions whereby able‑bodied
people who are without work and who are accessing social allowances, who want
to be back to work and are not able to do so because of the high
unemployment. Some critical thinking,
some new thinking has to take place, and I am looking forward to some of the
thoughts that may be put forward by colleagues in other western jurisdictions.
I have only gone through about half of the
enhancements that have been brought in in the last three years. I know the member for
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We are dealing with line 1.(d) Social Services
Advisory Committee, (1) Salaries $117,700.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, on this general area
of Social Services Advisory capacity, whether it be from the advice of the
Children's Advocate or the advice of Social Services Advisory Committee or the
advice of opposition members or the advice of community organizations, I would
like to try to get some answers out of the minister on some very fundamental
questions.
The minister just made a very interesting
comment in his very long regurgitation of his opening statement about all of
the supposed achievements of this government in the area of Family
Services. He pointed to other
governments, particularly the government of
I want to ask, since the minister seems to
support that kind of statement, why then did this government turn around and
eliminate one program that did a great deal to ensure people were making use of
social assistance in terms of education and job opportunities, that being, of
course, the elimination of the student social allowance program?
How on the one hand can he praise other
governments for saying we cannot pay people to stay at home, and then on the
other hand turn around and cut off one program that is aimed to do precisely
that, which is to get people who are on social assistance off the cycle of
welfare to get their basic education and to get a foot in life, so that they
can care for themselves and their family?
Is the minister not contradicting
himself? Could he explain, if he
believes in that philosophy of getting people on welfare a head start or a push
up, how can he cut one program that does precisely that?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if the member for St.
Johns thought I was lauding the government of Ontario she must have been in
conversation with her friend the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), because I
was not lauding a government that has a $17 billion deficit, a government that
is looking at laying off 20,000 civil servants, a government whose Crown
corporation in Hydro has had to lay off already 4,500 people, a government that
is desperately trying to find ways to reduce that staggering deficit which is
approaching the magnitude of what the national government has.
I am simply saying that the Premier of
Ontario is saying that there has to be some new thinking around the social allowances.
From indications I have seen in the national papers it has thrown the
membership into a bit of a dither there because this is foreign talk for a
socialist Premier like that. Members of
the unions and long‑time supporters of that party cannot believe that the
Premier of Ontario has flip‑flopped on what has been a hallmark of NDP
policy over the many, many years.
All I am pointing out to you is that the
comments made by that Premier with the significant difficulties that they have,
comments made by other Premiers, by a new minister in Alberta, by a new
President of the United States are signalling that, because of the structural
changes that have taken place not only in Canada but across North America and
across the world, which have led into this recession and the fact that there is
a great difficulty in accessing employment.
Now, fortunately, Manitoba's unemployment
rate is very low, but we still have a significant problem here, and I am saying
that if Premier Bob and others have some new thinking on how we can get people
back to work and make that transition from social assistance into the
workforce, if we have something to learn from him, so much the better.
It does remind me of one of our other
enhancements that fits into what I am saying here. On January 1, we extended the health benefits
to social assistance recipients who were sole‑support parents or disabled
clients to allow them to keep their health card while they make that transition
from social allowances into the world of work, because it was thought that this
had been somewhat of an impediment to those people and a reason why they chose
not to go into the workforce. I notice
now that other provinces are starting to look at that too.
In a new paper just put out in the
* (1610)
The member ended by talking about the student
social allowances, and I am not sure if the member was here before, but we did
have an agreement that we were going to adjourn here at 4:15 today, because I
have to go to an interprovincial meeting.
Maybe I can just say a few things about
the student social allowances. This
again was a program that was unique to Manitoba that some 1,100 recipients were
accessing in recent times that government can no longer afford to maintain,
although it will be in existence until the end of June, at which time it will
be terminated, a program that other provinces felt that they could not offer
and could not maintain and again one of the very difficult decisions that the
member for St. Johns's Leader has acknowledged many times.
As a result, we have had to make that very
difficult decision because of the demands on the department in many other
areas. The member is correct that this was one of the areas we had to reduce,
and we will try to accommodate them in the best way through other programming
that exists.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: Is it the will
of the committee that we rise? The hour
being 4:15 p.m., committee rise.
HIGHWAYS
AND TRANSPORTATION
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. This section of the Committee of
Supply is dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Highways and
Transportation.
We are on item 2. Operations and
Maintenance, (a) Maintenance Program $48,075,000.
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): I ask if the minister's staff could come to
the Chamber if the minister would require them to assist, please?
Madam Chairperson: Would the minister's staff please enter the
Chamber.
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Chairperson, I have informed
them. They are on the way. They should
be here momentarily.
Madam Chairperson: Shall the item pass?
Mr. Reid: Madam Chairperson, under this section, under
the Maintenance Program, I have many questions to ask of the minister.
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in
the Chair)
There has been a significant change in the
staffing of this section of the minister's department. I would like to ask, because there has been a
change in the way the maintenance programs and the regions have been structured,
there have been 12 positions that have been changed, and there has been
significant funding transferred. These
12 positions, what were the positions that were eliminated? Where were they from, and have these people
been absorbed by other sections of the minister's department or transferred to
other departments, or has it been through attrition?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, before I answer that,
there was a question on a certain appropriation, and a sample that was wanted
in terms of expenditures of $13,400 in our Estimates under Appropriation
15.1(e). I have a copy for each of the
critics that I would like to have distributed to them which gives you an
example of the amount we spent, $9,300.
This appropriation is for $13,400, but I will give a copy to each
critic.
I also undertook to get more information
on the Occupational Health and Safety Branch, exactly what has happened there,
and I have copies for each one of the critics as well. The member had indicated we had until summer,
but we have done it already, so that is fast.
The member asked if in the section under
the Maintenance Program, there has been a reduction in staff. Does he want to deal with it as a whole
because there are reductions in certain categories? If the member has gone through his Supplementary
pages, it shows exactly in which areas the staff reductions have taken place.
Mr. Acting Chairperson, the staff that he
is referring to were seasonal staff, and those positions were vacant. I just want to maybe indicate to the members
that actually in the reductions within the Department of Highways and
Transportation, the staff reductions that have taken place, in most cases we
dealt with vacant positions. There were
some live or filled positions that basically were affected, and we have accommodated
all of those in the department, with no exception, as there was nobody that was
laid off that has not been accommodated within the department.
Mr. Reid: I seem to be hearing over and over again
throughout the various Estimates processes over the years that I have been the
critic that we leave a fair number of jobs vacant and we do not fill those jobs
over the course of the year. Then when
it comes time for the budget considerations, we eliminate those positions.
Is this becoming a standard practice of
the department where we leave these jobs vacant so that we can reduce
staff? Is that how we are going about
that now? Is that the government policy?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, no, that is not the
case. The member must understand that with the amount of employees that we
have, which is over 2,300 employees in my total department, you will have
ongoing movement in there‑‑people retiring. Until positions get readvertised, there is an
ongoing vacancy rate. This has been going on, no matter, even after the
reductions that take place. After the
budgetary process that we have just gone through, we still have a vacancy rate
that runs in the area of sometimes around 5 percent.
So it is not done with malice aforethought
or any planning. It is just within a big department like this, this is an
ongoing thing.
Mr. Reid: In the last opportunity we had at sitting
where we were talking about the summer maintenance program, the minister
indicated that we were cutting back in the roadside maintenance programs. I do not believe‑‑I am not sure
if we had concluded the discussion on that with respect to the impact that it
was going to have on the structures themselves‑‑not the structures,
but the infrastructure itself, the highway roadbed.
If we are going to cut back on the
maintenance, are we going to have problems with water retention there, is it
going to have long‑term impacts and degradation of the transportation
network within the province, the highways?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, within the summer
maintenance the primary area of reduction will be in the roadside maintenance
activities. So it is not the road itself
which is going to be affected, it is the roadside activities that we are
basically addressing because these activities have the least impact on highway
safety. Identifying the required
reductions to accommodate the approved level of expenditure, the department
avoided to the extent possible the reductions in road‑surface work. So we still feel that we can maintain the
road system itself.
I made reference to it the other day, that
the esthetics itself are the ones that are going to basically be affected in
terms of how we do our roadside mowing, how we do the maintenance of our
plantings along these roads. These are
the areas that are going to be visible to the eye, but the reductions should
not generally affect our road system for safety reasons or otherwise.
Mr. Reid: Also, I had written to the minister some time
back and he had responded. It was with
concern to one of the roads in northern
There was a traffic accident that was on
that road. It was my understanding that
the accident had occurred as a result of dust conditions on the road, where one
vehicle passed another going in opposite directions, creating a dust condition
of course almost like a whiteout in the wintertime. The vehicle ended up in the ditch. Not only can it be loss of life in accidents
like that, it can also create significant property damage.
Are we cutting back on the dust control or
the dust abatement programs on the northern roads? There are not that many of them up there that
have hardtop or asphalt surfaces. Of
course, we need to have significant maintenance on them, I am sure, in the summer
months. Are we cutting back on that dust
abatement and maintenance of the northern road systems?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, in the past year we
did not cut down. We maintained our
program of dust maintenance throughout the province. For this year, there will be a reduction in
that. I might as well tell the member
right now, where we used to do dust treatment in front of residences on our
PRs, we will not be doing it to the same extent this year for obvious reasons,
which are financial reasons. As far as
making reference that the North is treated differently, has been cut back, that
is not the case.
However, we are reviewing the whole aspect
of the dust treatment within the province, and what we have tried to do‑‑I
mean, the most desired thing would be that we could treat every gravel road
that we had. This is not possible. We are very concerned every time there is a
death on one of our highways because invariably somebody wants to attribute it
to something that the department has or has not done. We are very conscientious about the safety
end of it.
What we do for the dust treatment in the
northern communities or northern roads, I should say‑‑391, 373,
some of the other gravel roads that we have, we have certain areas that we call
passing areas where we basically take a stretch of a mile or two, two miles,
where we then do dust applications so that there are areas where people can
pass.
For financial reasons, it is just
impossible for us to do the dust layer on all the roads that we have that are
gravel. Much as I would like to see that
done, it just is not in the cards.
Mr. Reid: Can the minister give me an indication,
because he has mentioned that there is going to be some cutback in the dust
abatement program, what type of reduction are we anticipating, are we going to
put in place for the coming summer months which we are obviously entering
now? Could he put a percentage figure on
it to give me an indication on the number of applications, times of
application, or an overall percentage that would be attached to the reduction?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the amount that we
are cutting back on the dust maintenance, or the dust suppression, is in the
area of doing it in front of residences.
That will be done by option. If
they want, they will have to pay for that service to be provided. That is the area where we basically are
cutting back.
Mr. Reid: If I understand the minister correctly then,
it is only going to be done in front of the residence properties along the way,
and they are going to be responsible for the cost?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, that is correct. Until now, we provided this service with the
people living within a certain distance from the road; we provided calcium
treatment in front of those residences.
That is one of the areas where we will be cutting back on service, and
those who would want to have it would have to pay for that service.
This is very much in keeping, Mr. Acting
Chairperson, with what the municipalities, by and large, are doing, where most
of them charge a certain fee for giving dust protection in front of
residences. This will create an
inconvenience. Yes, it will. We realize
that. This is one of the tough decisions
that we had to make in this department in trying to achieve our targets.
If the member looks at the balance of the
cutbacks that we have, we actually implemented some of the cutbacks. For example, in Winter Maintenance, we were
always proud, right after a snowfall or a storm, to take and have our crews into
towns cleaning up the snow. We are using
a slow‑down process where we are now taking and stockpiling the snow
along the centre and doing it when, basically, our crews are available to do
it. We used to go out and hire crews
above what we had to do it as expeditiously as possible.
So these are the things under the
Maintenance Program, the cutback that is there, that will be affecting the
services to some of the people. We will
still try and do it as efficiently as we can.
Mr. Reid: We have talked‑‑the minister has
given an indication here of northern roads being affected. Does this same policy apply to any of the
gravel roads in the southern portion of the province where the residents would
then be responsible for cost of the dust abatement program?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am sorry if I did
not clarify that. That is a policy
across the province. It is not directed
at the north or south. It is a policy
across the province in terms of not doing the dust treatment in front of
residences.
* (1450)
Mr. Reid: Can the minister give me an indication on the
type of cost savings we might expect out of this change in this program? What
kind of dollar value can he attach to the savings?
Mr. Driedger: Over $500,000, Mr. Acting Chairperson.
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Sveinson): 2.(a) Maintenance Program $48,075,000.
Mr. Reid: Sorry, I was a little bit delayed in putting
my hand up there before you moved through that section, but I am sure we can
ask questions under the Other Expenditures.
To go back to the Maintenance Program, the
Winter Maintenance program, of course, is obviously going to be important
because of the conditions we have in this province during the winter months‑‑[interjection]
I am sure the minister will have the opportunity. If he wants to provide me with some
questions, I will be pleased to ask them for him for any residents of his area
who might be living maybe in the Headingley area in particular.
What type of maintenance reduction program
are we expecting, and what type of services will we be providing for the Winter
Maintenance program? Are we going to be
seeing a reduction of that as a result of the reduction of the workweek, or is
that workweek reduction only going to be affecting the staff who are employed
during the Summer Maintenance program?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, that workweek
reduction is not going to affect the Winter Maintenance at all but will effect
a reduction in Winter Maintenance. If
the member was going to look at page 35, he will see there is a reduction from
$17,188,800 to $15,723,000, which is not a dramatic decrease, but it is a
decrease, however. I made reference to
the fact that we are processing‑‑in terms of snow or winter
maintenance, we might not be plowing as often as we maybe did in the past. The snow clean‑up at intersections in
towns and villages, snow fencing, drainage, sanding and salting‑‑these
are all that we have just tightened up a little bit, still keeping the safety
aspect of it in mind, when we are going to be doing this.
Of course, it is subject to the kind of
winter. If the member can guarantee me
that we are going to have a soft winter, that makes a big difference in my
budget. We are strictly working on
percentage‑‑
An Honourable Member: Ask me, I will do it, I will guarantee it.
Mr. Driedger: I am glad my colleague is prepared to take
and give me that assurance because that would really help. These are basically averages that we are
putting in here, because that will not always apply to the same thing. For example, last winter we started off
having bad storms in the beginning, and my budget was in dire straits halfway
through the winter, and then we started getting better weather where we did not
have to spend as much money. So we are
subject first of all to the winter conditions, but this is generally based on
an average winter. These are the things
that we would be doing.
Mr. Reid: Then if we are seeing a one and a half
million dollar reduction in the expenditures, which is about an 8.5 percent
reduction over the previous year, can the minister give me an idea of what we
would look for by way of the Maintenance Program? When would we be doing our snow
clearing? Would we wait until we have
got a foot of snow on the ground? What
change of policy is there that would indicate how the department is going to
react?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I just gave the
member an indication that we will still be very conscientious in terms of doing
what is required of us, in terms of salting, sanding, plowing, depending on the
severity of the storm and what the snow conditions are like out there. When we are looking at the reduction under
the Winter Maintenance alone, if we look at that, that reduction is not that major. So there are a few areas where we just maybe
do not plow as often. The department has
always taken great pride in making‑‑right after a storm, in the
middle of the night the crews are out there doing it. We might just have to slow down some of those
things a little bit, how fast we get out there, save on some overtime.
The cleanup in the towns and villages is a
thing that is pretty costly, and we will just maybe do that a little slower as
well. We have our plows out in towns and
villages; we windrow it in the centre. I
do not know, the member is probably not aware of what happens in rural areas,
but where we used to take and windrow it and clean it up, we will just maybe‑‑in
my own community of Grunthal, for example, when the snow is lying there for a
week, you know, people get a little nervous when the snow is on the street
windrowed in the centre for a week, but those are basically areas where we can
gradually accumulate savings.
Mr. Reid: It is obvious with this reduction, I take it
then there will be a reduction in the number of people performing the services
required for the Winter Maintenance program.
Can the minister tell me, over the course of the past years and
including last year, have we underspent the monies that were allocated for that
portion of the budget for either the Summer or the Winter Maintenance programs,
or have we expended up to the allotted amounts?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, both in the Summer
and Winter Maintenance and our total Maintenance budget, we are pretty well
bang on in terms of the monies being expended.
It is with, you know, good planning but also with a little bit of luck,
because if we had ended up with another couple of severe storms at the tail end
of March before the end of the fiscal year, that could have had a big bearing
on it. We were fortunate that we did not
get two or more major storms at the end of March. So those are the kind of things that we are
subject to.
Mr. Reid: This might be more of interest to the
Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) than to the Minister of Highways and
Transportation, but I find it curious that the minister indicates that his
department is pretty well bang on in its operations in the expenditure of its
funds and its mandate to provide clean, safe highways, and yet we see the City
of Winnipeg, every time they get a snowstorm‑‑well, we are going to
be a million dollars over budget because of this one storm.
How is it that the minister is able to
maintain his budget? I mean, we have the same climatic conditions for the rural
and surrounding
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the member just
answered himself when he started off saying that my people are very
efficient. I am serious, though, because
over the years I have a good idea. For
example, the Summer Maintenance, when we set our budgets, the districts know
how much money they basically will have to expend within that. When we cut back in certain things and tell
them this is what you do, they have been at it for such a long time, it is not
like a rookie politician coming into the Legislature not knowing what they are
doing. These people have been here for a
long time, know their business. When we
have targets we can basically accomplish them with the exception of the
unforeseen. When we have storms that may
be at the tail end of our fiscal year, they basically create some problems for
us.
Mr. Reid: I remember the minister talking in, I think
it was, the last session. He was quite
concerned by the uncontrollable costs which included fuel at that time. Is that still a concern of the
department? Do we still have that
problem? Are there many uncontrollable
costs that are within the Maintenance section of his department?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, no. At the present time this is not a problem for
us. We have a pretty reasonable idea. If
all of a sudden fuel costs would escalate by 10 percent, 15 percent, 20
percent, in my department that makes a dramatic difference. We do not foresee this happening, so we feel
comfortable that there is nothing unforeseen at the present time that we are
aware of that would affect anything we are doing.
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Sveinson): Item 2.(a) Maintenance Program $48,075,000‑‑pass.
2.(b) Management Services, (1) Salaries
$1,135,800.
* (1500)
Mr. Reid: I will be very brief here. It shows a reduction in the Other
Expenditures, under Management Services.
I know the minister was giving some explanation to the member for St.
James (Mr. Edwards) when we last met on Estimates. Is the expenditures under the Other section,
page 37, as a result of people of the Management Services moving about the
province and performing their duties, or can he give me some kind of a
breakdown in the Other Operating Expenditures?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, there are no specific
things that we are not doing the way we used to do. It is just part of the general reduction
which we have applied through all elements within my department across the
board. So we are trying to do‑‑without
getting to be more specific, we are asking staff to get out there, provide as
close to the same services we did before, a little bit more efficiently. That was basically what I was trying to
address in my opening remarks, that we are trying with less money provide the
same kind of service.
Mr. Reid: We have eliminated one staffperson under the
Managerial. It indicates here the
position was eliminated due to regionalization.
What service or what job or function did that individual perform? Were they transferred within the department,
and, if so, where were they transferred to, and why is it that we can do
without that service now that we have gone to the regionalization?
Mr. Driedger: I made reference to the regionalization
before. What we have done under regionalization with the establishment of five
regional offices, we feel that we are moving more of the responsibility to
these regional offices, and we have combined the position of construction and
maintenance. Where we used to have two
positions, we have amalgamated those two positions. We will have one individual who will be
basically operating out of
We feel this is part of the
rationalization and regionalization that is taking place.
Mr. Reid: From my own experience from the workforce,
the ratio here of managerial people to technical/professional and
administrative support seems to be fairly high.
We have four staff years managerial and 27 in total. So the ratio there seems to be significantly
below what one would expect in private industry, where I have seen a ratio
somewhere in the range of one to 25 or sometimes up to one to 50. Why in this case here is the ratio so low?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, they do not only manage
the positions that are shown there, they also manage the regional offices,
which used to be the district offices.
The managerial staff there, aside from the people that are immediately
under them, also take and have the responsibility of managing the regional
offices.
Mr. Reid: If I understand the minister correctly then,
the regional offices themselves will not have a manager on site. All the management services will fall under
the head office.
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, we will still have a
regional director in each of the regions.
These are support staff basically that do the supplementary work that is
involved with the whole region.
We have a regional director, and he has
his staffing people, his maintenance people, his construction people, his
bridge people. They are all part of a
component and service that we provide.
These are the ones that do the, how shall I say that, administrative
level, general program direction. That
is the kind of service that these people provide to all our outside activities
within the regions.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Chairperson, in the
Chair)
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Rose): 2.(b) Management Services (1) Salaries
$1,l35,800‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $470,900‑‑pass.
2.(c) Contracts (1) Salaries $781,500.
Mr. Reid: On page 38 of the Supplementary Estimates,
the Expected Results: Advertising,
awarding and payment of contracts for highway construction and maintenance
projects in
Looking at the project lists that the
minister has provided for us over the course of the years that I have been
here, it has provided us with some information not only on how and who the
projects are awarded to, but can the minister give me an indication if all of
the contracts are tendered before they are awarded? Has the list that he provides, has provided
for us in the past also indicated all of the contracts that his department
would award?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I would say that
anything under a construction program by and large is tendered. We have unique circumstances in more isolated
areas where possibly we need immediate work done. It would be undertaken, for example, if we
have heavy rainfall, if there are culvert problems, road problems, washouts,
where we move ahead without having a tendered project, but as far as the
capital program is concerned, in terms of construction, these things are all
tendered. They are tendered, you know,
whether it is crushing of gravel, whether it is the grading job, whether it is
the base and the AST, whether it is the asphalt application. Everything is tendered in that category. We do not take and arbitrarily award anything
other than in emergency cases that I just mentioned before.
Mr. Reid: Quite possibly, I should have asked this
under the maintenance section, but the same advice is available to the
minister, I take it. In the remotes or
the rural parts of our province, and I have seen this in some of the media
broadcasts, where we have had difficulties with water alongside of our highways
as a result of beaver population, has that created a problem in our highways
throughout the province, and if so, has the minister or his department had any
consultation with the Ministry of Natural Resources to deal with the problem?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the beaver problem is
actually an escalating problem that is, I think, because of the lack of value
for pelts, that they are not being trapped as aggressively as in the past, and
as a result, in certain parts of the province, the northern portion being one,
around the national park being another, we are having more and more
difficulties with the beavers setting up dams and flooding that takes place,
not only adjacent to the road, but actually effecting, you know, washouts, et
cetera.
What we have done, we have within the past
year‑‑well, we are in the process right now of entering into an
agreement with the Manitoba Trappers Association, where we are developing a one‑year
trial project with them, where they will be doing the trapping. We will be paying
them a certain amount of money for every pelt that is taken. It is going to be under the supervision of
our people in the field so that, you know, there is not going to be any abuse
taking place there. [interjection]
No, this is with the Trappers Association,
and I am quite pleased. I think the
Trappers Association is quite pleased with this trial project that we are going
into, and we have a good understanding in our discussions with them that it can
only work if both sides want to make it work.
So I think that will probably help to some degree, but yes, the beavers
are a problem, and it is not getting any less.
Mr. Reid: If the minister's department has entered into
an agreement with the Trappers Association and they are going to pay for, I
guess, the pelts that are presented, how do we control or how do we verify that
indeed a certain number of pelts have been taken so that payment can be made to
those who are employed in the trapping industry?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, we spent a lot of
time developing how we could do this so that there would be, you know,
safeguards in place. We do not pay by
the pelt. In fact, we are down to the
details where I think the beaver has on one of his left feet what they call a
grooming claw, and that will be the identification in terms of‑‑but
just to maybe build up to that, when we do have a problem, we have the list of
the trappers in the area.
We will be contacting them or the Manitoba
Trappers Association if we cannot get the immediate one in the area, and they
will allocate somebody for us. They will
go out and do an appraisal, and these guys are pretty qualified. They can tell you if in a certain hut, you
know, if we can call it that, beaver house, that there is maybe four, five, six
or seven beavers involved, and then we authorize them to trap them before we
remove the dam. Then this has to be done
in conjunction with our people.
* (1510)
Mr. Reid: Under the area of Contracts, now, I do not
know if it fits under this section or not, and the minister can advise me on
that. Since VIA Rail had eliminated 50
percent of its rail service and, of course, drastically impacted us in
Can the minister tell me if meetings are
still ongoing or what actions are taking place, if any, to deal with that
problem, the people who only have restricted access to their properties in and
about the Whiteshell area? At the same
time, has any discussion been taking place or are discussions taking place with
the government of
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, there are ongoing
discussions with the people who are affected at certain lakes. I think it is
The long and short of it is, the group
will now be making an application before the environmental commission in terms
of getting a road established from the Manitoba side to give access to the two
lakes that basically are affected from our people. How
Mr. Reid: I thought it would be important if the
governments of
I know from my own experience and the
people I have dealt with in those areas, they have undertaken and are currently
in several cases have a roads board that has been established. The property owners there have been
responsible for that roads board and for the raising of funds to offset the
costs of maintenance. In many of the cases, considering the amount of money
that would be necessary for the new construction into there, they could not
undertake that through their local residents roads boards.
Why could we not have a joint venture
between the
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the member is not
bringing up anything new, but we only have the one group that basically
organized for the two lakes affected by the
So we pursued it federally at our own
level. Then subsequent to many meetings and
discussions that have taken place since that time, it is atthe point where the
Minister of Natural Resources has given them clearance to see whether they can
get environmental clearance or licence to put a road through the wilderness, a
plan that has been tentatively drawn up by my people. We are trying to assist as best we can
without having financial involvement.
Ultimately, it is my understanding that
they would get an environmental licence to punch a road through, you know, a
portion of the wilderness to give them access that once they have that licence,
then we would take again, work together with them to try and approach the
federal government to participate financially in the actual construction of it.
We also looked at other options, Mr. Acting
Chairperson, in terms a of rail bus. We
have looked virtually at every option that we could in terms of trying to
assist these people. So there has been a
good working relationship between my department, the Department of Natural
Resources and the association that is looking for access.
Mr. Reid: That leads me to a couple more questions
then. Can the minister indicate the name
of the group and, if possible, any of the representatives that have
communicated with his department? Were
they conducting meetings with the minister with respect to only certain lake
areas, because it was my understanding that there was a larger group that had
been involved, covered a much larger area from
Mr. Driedger: The only group that we have been dealing with
that has come forward to see us has been the group dealing with the Nora and
The other lakes further up that are
affected would actually have to be accessed through
Mr. Reid: . . . Rennie, which is in
Mr. Driedger: Pardon me.
Mr. Reid: Rennie.
Mr. Driedger: Our access basically‑‑it is hard
to explain verbally here exactly where it goes.
On the maps, you know, we look at which is the best access to get down
there. You have to take into
consideration the‑‑what is that park called?
The road comes from that general area
where we have part of this point of access right now. From there on, it is taking off‑‑the
Mantario area there, the hiking area, we are trying to circumvent that. To be fair without trying to delay things and
talk too vaguely, I would have to actually show the member exactly on the map
what we are trying to accomplish and what their application before the Clean
Environment people is. I am prepared to
undertake that.
Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that. I will take him up on his offer after the
Estimates are finished and come to his office and talk further about this,
because there still are those concerns as I have raised here amongst the
property owners in that area, and I think they would like to see some
resolution of this because it is not too far down the road.
If we look at what has been happening with
the train service in this country since the cutback, there is even a further
deterioration of service and potentially maybe even the elimination of any of
the stops in those areas. So it becomes
more important if all service is eliminated.
I will take the minister up on his offer.
I have no other questions under this
section.
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Rose): Item 2.(c)(1) Salaries $781,500‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $149,800‑‑pass.
2.(d) Bridges and Structures, (1) Salaries
$1,824,000‑‑pass.
2.(d)(2) Other Expenditures $246,900.
*
(1520)
Mr. Reid: This is obviously an important section for us
in this province because we spend a fair chunk of our money on bridges and
structures in the province.
With the changes in the National Safety
Code and the pressure upon the various governments across the country to
increase the weights and dimensions of vehicles moving on our highways‑‑and
I am talking now about trucking‑‑are we seeing or do we anticipate
having an advanced maintenance program, a replacement program as a result of
pressures to increase the weights and dimensions for trucking on the highways?
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I am pleased that the
member has raised the issue of weights and dimensions.
What has happened in the last five years, I
think we virtually tripled the RTAC routes that we have in the province from
the time that I took office. One of the
biggest deterrents from expanding the system even more extensively than we have
is the fact that our structures are more of a problem‑‑the weights‑‑than
the road itself. What we have done is,
we have expanded the system throughout the province to try and get a more
equitable type of distribution system under the RTAC loading, which is very
important to the trucking industry.
As far as the rehabilitation of bridges is
concerned, we have been spending more money on bridges in the province, I
think, than we had earlier on in my tenure as Minister of Highways and
Transportation, of course, the structures being very expensive, you know, if you
take bridges across the Assiniboine or if you take bridges, the Red River, some
of the major arteries, always big megabucks involved.
We are trying to do that related to our
capital expenditure. We have so and so much that we try and allocate for
bridges. We try and allocate so and so
much for grading and so and so much for what we call base and the AST and for
paving and for concrete, both. We try
and do that in as fair a way as possible throughout the province so that the
contractors we have in the province all have a chance to at least get to bid on
work which affects their type of company.
For example, some of our contractors are
what we call grading contractors; some of our contractors are paving
contractors, and some of our contractors are basically involved in the bridge
construction. We try and do a blend of
this each year, very conscientious, so that we do not deviate too much from
that. So there is an expectation out
there of what they can expect and within reason that at least there is a certain
amount of work out for each of the categories.
Mr. Reid: I took a phone call yesterday from a
concerned
Do we have some kind of a policy in place
that would assist people living in the rural areas so that they might take part
in any contracts that would be awarded, to provide them with some seasonal
income during the very short construction period that we have?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, the only area where we
would possibly have a hiring preference would be in the northern communities or
the northern parts of the province to allow our northern people to have job
opportunities.
In the balance of the province, when we do
tender we do not tell the contractor who to hire or what. Though, my understanding was that most
contractors are very receptive to hiring local.
I get so many people that phone, young people, other people that phone
at this time of year who think that actually the government is doing the
building. We basically do not. We tender it.
The contractors are the ones that basically do the hiring of staff,
aside from the engineering staff component and the surveyors that make sure
that the work is done. Other than that
it is the contractor that does the hiring.
So sympathizing with the individual out
there, I would suggest that if the particular project that he is not being
hired for, that there are other contracts in the general area. I think if he would get in touch with the
heavy construction industry, he could probably get the names of all the
contractors, where they have jobs, so that he could maybe look for diversifying
from this one particular project.
If the member is saying that the
individual was working for government, I am not sure but I would suspect that
in most cases the equipment that we have, we do not go out and hire individuals
to do certain work as related to construction unless in unique cases. Like, we hire backhoes or stuff of that
nature for certain specific needs, but a truck, for example, I would like to
think that we will have enough work out there that a truck driver who has a
truck should be able to get around and find that information. He can go to the district office and find out
which contracts are available in the general area so that he can work as close
to home as possible.
I know that many of the truckers that take
jobs, you know some of them live a couple of hundred miles away from where they
hire on with the contractors. Basically,
it is the contractors that make the decision, not the government.
Mr. Reid: The reason why I raised this is I feel some
sympathy, I suppose, or some empathy, I think would be a better term, for the
people that are living in those areas. I
mean, employment opportunities are scarce probably at the best of times. Then they see a large firm that has been
awarded a contract for highway construction come into their communities
bringing people from larger population centres like maybe Thompson, Brandon or
Winnipeg to do this type of work and leave out, without any consideration,
people living in the rural areas.
I do not mean to suggest for a minute that
the minister should make any hard and firm or fast rules for these firms that
are awarded these contracts, but it is in the interest of consideration for
people living in the rural areas that obviously rely on some form of seasonal
work that is either in the Highways capital construction program or in the Maintenance
Program, where there are private contracts awarded, why we cannot indicate to
the contractors that have been awarded the contracts, we would like you to give
consideration to those that are living in the rural areas that might come to
you seeking work to give the people in the rural areas that opportunity. I throw that out as a suggestion for the
minister and leave that with him.
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I was under the impression
that most of the contractors look to get the services as close to the general
area as possible, like from the general area.
I in my own area have many smaller truckers that continually ask for
potential involvement for working for the department. It need not just be truckers, it could be
backhoe operators, other machinery. What
I always suggest to them is to go to the district office, now the regional
office, put your name in, you know, register your name there that you are
available for whatever work comes up, and invariably that has worked
satisfactorily for many of the people, at least the smaller operators in my
area who take a job wherever they can.
We try and do it as fairly as possible in
terms of giving them provision to get involved that way. In my area it works that way. I would suggest in this case that that
individual maybe register with my department in
Mr. Reid: To go back to Bridges and Structures, the minister
indicated that his department expends a fair amount of its available resources
in dollars on bridges and structures.
If we are going to see, and I take it,
maybe my perception is wrong, that the structures in the rural areas may be not
up to the same standard levels as what you might find on your more major
arteries through the province. If we are
going to see changes in the method of payment for grain producers and there is
a potential that we would see larger vehicles moving from the farm gate to wherever
they would move their grain product over the grid road systems in the province,
have we anticipated or have we done any studies to determine what impact that
change in the method of payment is going to have on the bridges and structures
and the grid road systems in the province?
* (1530)
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, a lot of this is
anticipatory in terms of which lines might be dropped ultimately, but
continually my department and myself have raised major concerns in terms of
what happens when you have rail line abandonment. In my opening remarks I also made reference
to the change in the method of payment and the impact that it would have. The province, from the time that I was in
office, and it had actually taken place before my time, had come to an
understanding in terms of addressing the process of abandonment in such a way
that there should be provisions for some offset transferring when you abandon,
there should be some offset in compensation for municipalities, communities and
the provincial government because we transfer that transportation
responsibility from rail to highways.
That has continually been our position
even as late as last week when I attended the Westac [phonetic] conference and
have raised it continually, together with my colleague the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), who raised it as well, that there is going to be an
impact on the provincial and municipal road structures. So that has always been one of the top issues
that we bring forward if there are going to be changes taking place in terms of
abandonment or method of payment.
Mr. Reid: Well, I am glad the minister and his
colleague raised that at those meetings.
Can the minister give me any idea of impact, dollar value‑wise,
that these changes might mean for the
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, my director of
transportation policy is not here. We
anticipate him to join us when we get to that section. He basically has more precise information,
and he is my representative on the hearings that are taking place regarding the
rail study that is taking place, has been very actively involved in this. When we come to that section of the
Estimates, Appropriation 5, once we get to that, I would be able to have Dennis
Schaefer here who can probably give you a bit more precise information at that
time, prepared to do that then.
Madam Chairperson: Item 2.(d)(2) Other Expenditures $246,900‑‑pass;
2.(d)(3) Bridge Maintenance $823,600‑‑pass.
Item 2.(e) Transport Compliance.
Mr. Reid: I have raised many questions with the
minister on this section in the past, when there were issues that were brought
to my attention with respect to the trucking and the rail industry from a
safety perspective in this province. The
minister had provided some information for us in the sense of truck traffic and
rail traffic in the province. Can he
give me an indication on whether or not there are any vacancies that are
existing within the staff of the Transport Compliance?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, we have three vacancies in
that element out of 56.26 SYs. We have
three vacancies at the present time and are proceeding to go through the
process of filling those.
Mr. Reid: Can the minister indicate where those
vacancies exist? Is it in the
managerial, the technical or the administrative?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, in the technical area.
Mr. Reid: Is it common to see a turnover of staff in
the technical section?‑‑because, if my understanding is correct,
these are the people who do the actual checking for compliance. Would we
normally see a large turnover of staff in that section of the department, and
if so, why?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, certainly nothing out of
the unusual. I know that, for example,
in my specific district out there, the compliance officers out there have been
there for, I think, forever. The only
changes that will be taking place is through retirement or whatever specific
reason. There is nothing untoward happening
that would create more people to have a bigger turnover than any other position.
Mr. Reid: When I look at the changes in the dollar
value, the reductions in the dollar value for the number of employees who are
employed, there seems to be nearly double the amount of a decrease in the
dollar value per employee percentage‑wise in the administrative support
versus those who are in the technical and managerial sections. Is there a reason why the administrative
support staff is down 4.5 percent approximately when the managerial and
technical are anywhere from less than 1 percent to 2 percent?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I tried to clarify that
earlier on that in some cases you have, first of all, the overall reduction
applied, which is 4 percent basically, which is reflected here, but it will
vary in each category a little bit depending on increments and whether a senior
individual has resigned. You sort of
have a cycle taking place, so it will vary in each case. I do not know how to be much more specific,
other than to go into great detail with staff and clarify that under each
category.
There is nothing untoward happening. It will vary a little bit from each section
that we look at, depending on the increments that individuals are qualified
for, whether there has been a reclassification or whether there has been more junior
staff that are on stream with a lesser wage, so to allay the concerns of the
member, if that is what he is looking at, things are varied in the normal way
of moving forward in terms of the wages.
Mr. Reid: Yes, I will accept that from the minister.
Can the minister indicate the number of
inspections that the Transport Compliance people would have undertaken over the
course of the last year? How many
violations were there of the code, and can the minister indicate the type of
violations if he has that data available, a breakdown of the type of
violations?
Mr. Driedger: The total number of vehicles processed in
1991‑92 was 520,897. In '92‑93,
it was 436,901. I have it broken down
here in regard to prosecution statistics based on overweight, oversized, public
service vehicle, quality equipment and safety, driver vehicle licencing,
dangerous goods, hours of service. I
have all the categories broken down in terms of the prosecutions, other
statistics that people basically are involved with the single‑trip
permits, the designated regulated commodity permits, motor fuel permits,
revenue statistics.
If the member wants to, I can try and get
information for him. Not today, but I
will get if for him in terms of exactly how it is broken down. Would that be adequate?
Mr. Reid: Yes, I would appreciate that. I do not mean to say that the minister should
provide it here and today, if he can provide it. He was very good about providing the last
information I requested within the space of two days, so that would be
acceptable.
Could the minister also indicate, because
there appears to be a large number of infractions, even though the amount has
decreased year over year from the previous year‑‑are we seeing, as
a result of better inspections, more reliability of equipment, more
responsibility of the operators? Is that
the reason why we are seeing a 90,000 decrease in the number of inspections
required? Because we had technical staff
that have not been available? What was
the reason why there have been fewer inspections?
* (1540)
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, there are so many things
that could affect this, you know, the amount of trucks that are on the
road. Maybe the figures that I gave him
initially‑‑that is why I would rather take and process and give him
the set of figures that show it precisely, because there is a lot of deviations
in here.
For example, prosecutions are up from the
year before, so less inspections maybe, but more prosecutions. So the information I have here‑‑rather
than give the false impression and have a long dialogue on it‑‑I am
prepared by Monday when we next meet on the Estimates to sort of have a
summarization of exactly what has happened on the category for both
critics. It will give you a little
better idea exactly what our Transport Compliance people have done.
Mr. Reid: That will be fine, if the minister can
provide it then.
Can the minister give me an indication on
the type of revenue that this would generate for the province by way of fines
or sanctions that are imposed by those that are caught with infractions? What does it mean in terms of revenue for the
province?
Mr. Driedger: Last year it was $548,770 worth of fines and
costs attributed to our Transport Compliance activities.
Mr. Reid: Is that for '92‑93?
Mr. Driedger: Yes, Madam Chairperson, that was for '92‑93.
Mr. Reid: Do we have the figures for the previous year?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, for the previous year it
was $473,267. In the sheet that I will
provide for the members, it will also show the single‑trip permits, the
designated regulated commodity fees, the motor permits. I will have all that information on that
sheet.
Mr. Reid: The minister obviously anticipated my next
questions because that is what I was going to ask, the number of single‑trip
fees and the fuel tax and permit fees that the province would receive as a
result of the Transport Compliance issuing these.
Can the minister also provide the number
of special permits that his department would have issued and the reasons,
generally, for the special permits, weight restrictions or otherwise?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, after I have provided this
sheet for the member on Monday or whenever I can get it to him, hopefully
Monday, I think it will cover all the areas.
I can put them all into the record, but I do not know whether the member
wants to spend the time doing that. So I
will provide it for both my critics for Monday in terms which will cover all
areas of it, even the ones that he maybe has not thought of.
Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that.
How many actual inspectors do we have in
doing the Transport Compliance monitoring, the inspections?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, we have 46 positions in
that area.
Mr. Reid: I realize that. It is listed in the book here, under
Technical/Professional. Are all of those
people actually doing the inspections for Transport Compliance?
Mr. Driedger: Yes.
Mr. Reid: One last question under this section. The educational seminars to the trucking
industry. I had asked questions in
previous Estimates about education and training for those who are employed in
the trucking industry, in the sense, the drivers. The minister had indicated
that it was training for the drivers. It takes place under private companies
whether it be‑‑I think it is Merv Orr's or other firms that are in
and about
We talk about educational seminars. Are these educational seminars that are put
on by the department or by private industry, and what type of seminars is it
that we provide for the trucking industry?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, we have, especially in the
last number of months, expanded our activities in terms of having educational
seminars in Brandon and other areas working very closely with the MTA, the
Manitoba Trucking Association, in conjunction with them, so that we get out
there and get the kind of coverage to let the people know what is happening
when we have these seminars. It is a
very well received activity that the MTA encourages in working with staff.
I might say we have, along with that and
other things, a good working relationship with the MTA.
Mr. Reid: I know in discussions with my colleague for
Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) that the MTA seems to have had a fairly good working
relationship with the government over a number of years now. The minister indicates that the MTA is happy
with‑‑I guess, it is maybe not the best term‑‑the
seminars that are put on, but are these educational seminars put on‑‑
An Honourable Member: Elated.
Mr. Reid: They may be elated, yes. I have attended some of the conferences where
the minister has addressed his remarks to them, and I have noted the
relationship that exists between the minister and the industry, not that that
relationship was not there with previous ministers. There may be some considerations that are
given to this minister that maybe were not afforded to other ministers.
When you said the MTA, that the
educational seminars are provided for members of the Manitoba Trucking
Association, are these for the managers and the directors of the company? Are these for the actual people who are
employed within the operations, including drivers and maintenance people?
Mr. Driedger: My staff organizes these in conjunction with
the MTA, but it is an open invitation for drivers, for managers, whoever wants
to basically come. It is not that it is
a closed type of shop.
Jointly they work out where these seminars
are going to take place and then the invitations go out through whatever means
of advertising, I guess. It is a joint
effort.
Mr. Reid: Are these funded by the minister's
department? The Transport Compliance
section, are they responsible for the costs incurred for providing these
seminars, or do the funds come about as a result of some other department?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, the only cost actually is
the staff people who go out there and do it; that is virtually the only costs
affiliated with the seminars. I pay my
staff, or staff is paid through the department.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Yes, just a short comment here to say to my
honourable friend the Minister of Highways that I was rehired for the day to be
critic for Highways and Transportation.
My question to the minister: In regard to the salaries in general here,
there has been a reduction, but there has been no reduction to staff. Is that because of the reduction in the
working days during the period?
* (1550)
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, let me first of all welcome
back my previous critic from the second opposition. Unfortunately, he was not
here yesterday when I clarified that this was going to be throughout the
information that you have there. Any
reduction where the staff is the same is the reduction in the wages. That all reflects basically the reduced
workweek program that we have implemented.
You will see that throughout. It
will vary a little bit depending on the categories where they are in. It is consistently a 4 percent reduction for
each individual. Now there are
categories, there might be increments, there might be reclassifications, but
that is basically what it reflects throughout here.
Mr. Gaudry: That is fine.
Madam Chairperson: Item 2.(e) Transport Compliance, (1) Salaries
$1,832,400‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $474,900‑‑pass.
Item 2.(f) Winter Roads.
Mr. Reid: Under Winter Roads, of course, it is very
important for the many parts of the northern part of our province in the sense
that they have no other means of bringing their goods and services into their
communities and moving their product for sale out of their communities. It is my understanding that the winter road
systems this year did not have quite the season that we would normally have
expected during the winter months. We had,
I think, a late start. I sense, too, and
I think I saw the advertisement where the winter road systems are now
closed. It puts some difficulties upon
these communities trying to get their goods and services into their communities
during that short shipping time.
There was some discussion that I have
heard and has been related to me by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that
the communities would like to see, where possible, an extension of that winter
roads season, maybe not so much for the trucking because of the weights that
are involved, but for the normal traffic that might use those roads. Is there any possibility that winter road
season could be extended for those people who are just moving about as passengers
and not transport of freight?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, let me first of all
explain and maybe give the member a little bit of background. I do not know whether he has ever had the
privilege of travelling the winter roads.
Each year is a different challenge for the department and for the people
who construct the winter roads depending on the type of freeze‑up you
have, whether you have a lot of snow where the frost does not necessarily set
in as good so that more work is involved in terms of doing the packing, et
cetera, whether they have snow and the lakes do not freeze properly. Each year is a new challenge, and what we try
and do‑‑most of the people, I am talking trucking now, have an idea
roughly what the season is. Every once
in a while we get a curve thrown at us as we did this year in February when all
of a sudden the temperature shoots way up and all of a sudden our lakes are all
full of water and the trail starts going down on us and we had to close it for
a week. We then negotiated our contract‑‑I
should not say negotiated, but we reconsidered our position and because of the
weather conditions extended it for an extra week from what we would normally
close.
The member makes reference to the
expansion of the time beyond what we normally have‑‑not for the
trucking industry as much because we did get all our trucking‑‑we
had some concerns that we would not get all our supplies in but basically all
the suppliers got their trucks in. I
think the last 19 trucks got in and we were already sweating bullets to see
whether we could get them back out in time.
But, anyway, we got the stuff in.
From the residential point of view, we
have always had pressure to expand it earlier and later because this is the
only way that they can basically reasonably financially get out into the world‑‑if
I can put it that bluntly‑‑other than by plane or other ways. For these communities, they wait with
anticipation until we have the winter roads open. Even before we officially open them, they are
already driving on them and they continue to drive after we have officially
closed.
We actually have no responsibility yet, at
that stage of the game. For insurance
reasons, they are on their own, and they actually drive the roads‑‑the
residents drive the roads until they virtually cannot drive anymore. To extend the season, the cost for doing that
would be prohibitive. They are on their
own, they can still do it. They can
drive as long as the roads are barely drivable.
It is not quite that simple in terms of extending it.
First of all, the costs, the monetary end
of it, we have such and such a budget and as you notice, the member, I think,
to both members I want to say that the appropriation for winter roads has not
changed and has not been reduced as pretty well everything else has been done. I just want to make one correction here. On page 45, it says: "Recoverable from
This is the first year where in my opening
remarks I made reference to the fact that we have cut a deal with the Southeast
Resource Development Council where they, instead of us dealing with the federal
government, the federal government has given them the responsibility of
allocation. So we deal with them and
that one group, the Norwin group, if I could make reference to it that way,
where they, out of their allocation, then deal with us on the road.
The other ones, we still deal with the
federal government. I just want to make
that correction so that there is at one point $665,000 that is recoverable
basically from the federal government.
One directly, and one through the Southeast Resource Development
corporation.
Mr. Reid: I had written to the minister earlier and
asked him for some information on the contracting procedures for those who are
living in the northern areas of the province and who would like to be part of
the winter road construction maintenance program. I thank the minister for that information. I did pass that along.
The minister has introduced, at least for
first reading, a piece of legislation dealing with winter road amendments. Can the minister give me some explanation of
what the purpose is, because this legislation has not gone forward any further
than the initial first reading. What is
taking place with the bill and when we might expect to see that legislation
come forward.
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I suppose I have to take
some responsibility for having moved on the first reading of that bill without
being totally prepared. So I still am
not any further in terms of being prepared to give second reading. We are working with staff to see whether we
will proceed with the bill or not. There are certain things that I alluded to
with the member in terms of the concerns that we had in terms of what we were
trying to accomplish. So whether we will
continue with that or not, if we get our information together then we would
proceed with second reading. If not,
then I would inform my colleagues as to what we are going to do.
Mr. Reid: I take it then that the details, as the
minister had related earlier, have not been worked out and that we may not be able
to work them out in time before the end of this session and that we have to put
aside this legislation until another opportunity.
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, yes, we are still in the
consultation process on that. If we can
get those things fully addressed, then we will proceed. If not, then I will inform them we will be
coming forward with that at a future time.
Mr. Gaudry: Madam Chairperson, in the Expected
Results: The development of local
employment opportunities for northern and remote areas, can you tell me how
many jobs does this create during that period of winter roads in northern
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I do not have the precise
information, because what we do, we have a deal with Norwin construction for a
certain portion of the system, and they basically do that. We have our supervisory staff inspectors and
they also have supervisory staff inspectors, but it is their company, Norwin
construction company, that basically does a good portion of the eastern part of
the lower part of the province starting at Hole River and that area and going
up to Island Lake, Red Sucker Lake, Bloodvein, Poplar River, Berens River. That is one contract which we basically have
with them.
* (1600)
We have approximately 11 contractors that
we work with on the system as a whole.
We have approximately 15 various contractors and most of those
contractors are basically native communities that have their own development
company that basically does the work for us.
In a few isolated cases, we tender it.
Where we tender it, you know, where we do not have communities that are
involved, but we pay very much attention to making provision for the lack of
employment opportunities for the people in northern Manitoba, whether it is
with our airports, whether it is any other work that we do, very conscientious
in terms of having the native unemployment factor addressed.
Mr. Gaudry: So if I understand correctly, all the
government does here is give the funds to the northern communities and they
employ their local people, and everything is supervised locally with the
government funding the winter roads project.
Mr. Driedger: I want to clarify that. We have some of our staff involved as well,
because you have to understand that from the time that we open the winter roads
through the time we close them, that we have the responsibility for them, you
know, the insurance. So we have our
people involved as well in terms of doing the inspections to make sure that
their ice conditions are proper or thick enough.
So we work very closely in conjunction
with them. It is actually, at least from
my perspective, and I think from theirs, a very good working relationship, but
we still have certain responsibilities through my department to make sure that
certain conditions and safety elements are met.
But it is mostly the native people that undertake the employment itself.
Mr. Gaudry: Why would the staff that are involved directly
from the government not be identified as such whether they are technical or
inspectors for that department?
Mr. Driedger: They are regional staff. Like, they come out of our regional
offices. For example, our Selkirk office
has been the one that has been basically responsible for, you know, the
staffing going out there, and it would be shown when we get to the five regions
that we have. It is shown in there.
Madam Chairperson: 2.(f) Winter Roads (1) 100 Percent Provincial
$245,000‑‑pass; 2.(f)(2) Shareable with
2.(g) Other Jurisdictions (1) Gross
Expenditures.
Mr. Reid: It is my understanding, looking at the
explanation provided on page 46, that the department does construction work for
other jurisdictions as totally cost recoverable. Can the minister give me an indication on
what type of construction programs were undertaken for various jurisdictions,
LGDs, municipalities over the course of the last year? What kind of dollar value would be attached
to that, and do we anticipate an increase or a decrease on that for the current
year?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, let me first of all
indicate to the critics that there is a substantial reduction in the
appropriation of Other Jurisdictions.
The reason for that is that we undertook initially the figure I think a
few years ago was around $3 million, but part of that was because we undertook
certain works for the Manitoba Hydro and construction of the road to Conawapa
where we were doing the technical services.
They have paid us for that, but that was one instance where we worked
with a Crown corporation.
In the northern areas, we also undertake a
fair amount of work for individuals where equipment is not available. If equipment is available‑‑and it
always gets to be a judgment call because a lot of private people, for example,
have preference to have the government provide the service instead of the
private sector because they feel that we probably maybe are more easily
accessible. We are trying to sort of
move in the direction where they would use the private sector more than
ourselves. Even though we fully cost
recover, it shows as an expenditure in my area here when we started cutting
back. This is one area where we do.
The type of service that we basically
provide is, in remote communities, for example, snow plowing, dragging,
engineering services, labour, to the tune of approximately a million. With MPIC, for example, we did repair to
highway installations, structures damaged by accidents, to the tune of a
hundred thousand, a variety of maintenance services in remote areas to the tune
of $10,000, Manitoba Hydro $120,000, the federal government emergency equipment
for RCMP at accident sites to the tune of $10,000, other provinces, for
example, interestingly enough, maintenance on short pieces of road accessible
only from Manitoba, related to Ontario and to Saskatchewan, where we have
pieces like that, native bands in remote areas, maintenance activities for the
private sector, with CN, CP, asphalt repairs at railway crossings, gas
utilities, sewer‑water contractors, building movers. These are all the kinds of activities that we
get involved in in terms of providing a service which we then charge and get
fully recovered.
Mr. Reid: Is this privileged information, or is it
possible to have some kind of an idea or breakdown on a list that maybe the
minister could provide?
Mr. Driedger: This information, Madam Chairperson, I am
prepared to take and make a copy of this available. I will have that for him on Monday as
well. We will redo some of these things
so that‑‑[interjection] I am prepared to take and do that right now
just so that you know that my intentions are always honourable when I say I
will undertake these things.
Mr. Reid: Can the minister give me an indication,
because the Conawapa project has been shelved for the time being, shall we say,
what type of dollar value was expended on the road to that Conawapa site from
the roads that had been in place at the time, and was the road totally
completed, or are there still sections of that road to be completed to the
site?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, actually the project, I
think, was undertaken approximately two years ago. We at that time provided the engineering and
the design from my departmental people for Manitoba Hydro which ultimately‑‑and
we did the letting of the contract on behalf of Hydro. For all those services that we provided, the
cost was approximately $1 million at the time.
If the member looks on the list in front
of him, he should notice that our work with Manitoba Hydro is substantially
reduced since that time. If I can recall
correctly, and I would have to go back a few years now, I think it was on the
Conawapa project, that we charged Manitoba Hydro, was in the vicinity of $1
million for that total project.
Mr. Reid: I have had the opportunity to go to Gillam
several times over the course of the last three years, and I enjoy the northern
part of the province. I enjoy travelling
in northern
Are there any plans this current year to
upgrade the condition of that road?
Because I find it somewhat difficult from my times travelling it to
travel over it. It is like riding a
roller coaster at a major exhibition somewhere in the country to travel on that
piece of highway.
* (1610)
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I share the enjoyment of
travelling in the North, being an outdoors person. The member, if he travels up there, must well
realize the conditions that we have out there in terms of the permafrost and
the heaving that takes place. Obviously,
if he has travelled the road he must have had a good chance to look at some of
these things.
In terms of rebuilding, one of the
challenges that I face, and my total department in terms of road construction,
is that‑‑seemingly our human services‑‑are the
departments that have prioritized more in terms of spending than the Department
of Highways and Transportation. For
example, in 1981, the capital program for construction was $100 million. In the year 1992‑93, just passed, my
capital program was $103 million, so if you just take the normal rate of
inflation I think that the members can see that I am losing the battle.
As much as I would like to, there is
nothing nicer in my view than to be able to take and complete reconstruction of
highways throughout the province and have the results of a nice job then
showing up. Part of the problem that I
have is that we try and when we set our priorities we do this on taking many
things into consideration‑‑the amount of traffic that is on there,
the kind of traffic that is on there, the condition of the road. We have a system whereby we classify the
condition of a road by number, between one and 100, as to the kind of shape it is
in. If it was just a matter of saying,
"well, it needs it, we will do it," I would be only too pleased to,
because certainly I am still with my department. That is not quite how it works.
When, depending on the kind of pressure
that comes down‑‑for example, I would expect if the Conawapa went
ahead that more pressure would be coming down to rebuild or to upgrade the
road. It would not necessarily be one of my priorities at the present time
based on the fact that‑‑
An Honourable Member: I would like to know if the minister
recommends canoe travel in the North?
Mr. Driedger: Not necessarily either.
Mr. Reid: Well, I am sure the Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Enns) then would follow in the lead of his Premier who liked to
spend some time in a canoe as well, as we noticed by previous advertisements.
My question for the minister: There has been an elimination of, as he has
indicated in his Estimates here, two positions due to reduced work performed
for other jurisdictions. Has the
minister received any indication from the other jurisdictions whether or not
they put projects on hold as a result of the economic conditions, tight
resources? Is it because they have had
to absorb some of the costs that the minister's department has offloaded on them
in the past when they have transferred some of the PRs to them over past
years? What reasons has the minister
received from the LGDs, the towns, villages, municipalities for the reduction
in these programs?
Mr. Driedger: I would want to ask the member to be
nice. I am trying to be very
accommodating in terms of information and now he is starting to get picky and
that does not bode well for good dialogue here in the Estimates.
I just want to say that the approach we
have taken within the department over the last number of years is that we are
encouraging LGDs, towns, villages, private sector. We encourage them to go more to the private
sector than have the service provided through my department. It is not just an overnight thing, this has
been gradually worked towards for the last little while. Like I say, it was just two or three years
ago when we had, I think, $3 million in this appropriation.
We are doing that in such a way that we
still do not try and offend. For
example, let us take in the cottage areas in the Whiteshell where at one time
we were providing the snowplowing services.
We say to them now‑‑they have their various associations at
each lake‑‑go and see where you can get a private contractor to do
it, and it is working well. Staff work
very closely with the people so we do not leave anybody stranded without
services, but we are encouraging expansion of going to the private sector
instead of us providing that service.
Mr. Reid: In that sense, if the budget for this portion
of his department has been reduced from the level he indicated, does he
anticipate that somewhere in the near future then we will be eliminating
funding from this section of his budget altogther?
Mr. Driedger: No, Madam Chairperson, most certainly
not. If the member will look on the
sheet that I provided him with, the various services that we provide, many of
those services, it is not reasonable for the private sector to provide
them. So there is always going to be a
component here to provide that kind of service, because in my big department we
have this equipment and we have an exposure in these areas, so that will always
continue.
All we are trying to do is sort of grade
it down to some degree, but it is certainly not a matter of elimination on
this.
Madam Chairperson: Item 2.(g) Other Jurisdictions, (1) Gross
Expenditures $2,640,000‑‑pass; (2) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations
($l,000,000)‑‑pass.
2.(h) Eastern Region Office.
Mr. Reid: Since there has been a changeover, I believe
it was 13 districts, now you have got the five regions‑‑and I thank
the minister for providing each of us with the information and the map
explaining the changes that are there. I
guess time will tell whether or not this is a good move as far as service is
concerned for the different parts of the province. What kind of overall savings does the
minister anticipate would be realized as a result of the move away from the 13
districts down to the five regions? What
type of savings, dollar value, would we anticipate?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, first of all, let me give
a little bit of background to the members here.
Virtually every year this department has been faced with ongoing
pressure in terms of providing the same service with less people, so the
rationalization has been going on. Part
of that program was a few years ago when we turned back 2,000 kilometres of PR
to the municipalities. It was all part
of it, and the pressure continues for us to downgrade or try and provide an
efficient, same kind of service with less people. That is where this regionalization concept
developed from.
If the member looks in his book, basically
the next five categories deal with each of the specific regions. If the members want to, we can deal with the
regionalization as a whole or you can deal with it individually. I do not really care how you do it.
The regionalization will result in a
reduction of 40 SYs in head office. We
have 40 of our people in our head office who, by the time we finish the
regionalization, will have been moved into the regional offices to provide
better service out there. Then we have
an increase of 16 SYs in the five newly created regions for a net overall
reduction of 24 SYs mostly at senior‑ and middle‑management
levels. So it is at the management level
where basically, out of our
Mr. Reid: So then the savings that are here are
effected by reduction in the middle‑management section, the middle‑management
staffing areas. We are going to retain
basically the same number of people performing the work in the different
regions now as we had prior in the districts, the actual hands‑on work?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, we are trying to, through
regionalization, move some of the middle‑management people into the five
regions to provide better, more immediate service to our contractors,
municipalities, et cetera.
Mr. Reid: How do you see that? All the SYs are down.
* (1620)
Mr. Driedger: No, the SYs are not down. I thought I had explained that we have a
decrease of 40 in head office this year, but we have an increase of 16 SYs in
the five newly created regions.
Mr. Reid: And the managers?
Mr. Driedger: For a net overall reduction of 24 SYs which
basically‑‑the ones that we are moving out of there, basically
middle management, senior middle‑management levels. Twelve less SY reductions were effected in
'92‑93, which was last year. We
have six SY reductions taking place in this current year, and another six
reductions will occur in '94‑95.
Now, when the member looks at, for
example, the Eastern Region Office, what we have done is convert from the three
district offices that were basically involved there. We have tried to sort of relate that
comparatively, you know, from the districts to the region now, just for
comparison sake, so that the members get a little better feel for what has
happened.
Mr. Reid: I am not sure if the minister was finished
his comments there. How will this
improve the delivery of services to the communities that were in the previous
districts? How will this impact upon
them? Will there be an improvement in
the service, or was the only consideration here for the reduction of the cost?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, cost was one of the
driving factors in this, but while we were doing the regionalization we also
felt that we could deliver a more efficient system by giving more autonomy and
authority to the regions instead of having everything come through the district
office and then go through the tiers up to the top management positions. We will be providing more services out of the
area in terms of, let us say, bridge maintenance, which basically was operated
out of the city to quite a degree. We
will be providing that. We will take and
have our accounting and payment system established in each region so that it
will, instead of the long process, be dealt with there, in and out much faster.
So there are all of these components that
will actually expedite and move things a lot faster than the cumbersome route
that we did before. We will give more
authority to the local regions in terms of providing the service. So it will be much faster and more efficient.
The construction industry initially raised
some concern whether‑‑how this would work, because if you have a
set pattern in the way you do things all the time and you all of a sudden change
it, you have your doubts as to whether it will work. We have spent considerable time consulting
with them and we feel that they have a comfort level with it as well as
ourselves, and I gave the undertaking that if there are glitches as we go
through this, we are prepared to be very flexible. This is not cast in stone, but we think that
we can provide a very good, capable service the way we are going to be‑‑with
the concept of regionalization that we have it set up.
Mr. Reid: I take it then that the minister, as a result
of these changes, will have more or less like a working cabinet to advise him
on a priority basis for any programs or projects that might need to be
undertaken in the specific regions then.
You will have a cabinet or a committee that will come in and work with
him on these when it comes to the decision‑making time? Is that how he anticipates putting together
the necessary programs?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, yes, though we have had
input from the districts all the time as well, like each district brings
forward their priorities ultimately to my senior staff here. We then sit down and rationalize and
prioritize as to which projects we can undertake. Ultimately, taking all these things into
consideration, there are still political decisions ultimately made as to which
roads‑‑I mean you have a dozen roads and you know you have money
for six ultimately, the minister still has fortunately some input into which
ones are the ones that are going to go ahead.
Mr. Reid: Can the minister indicate to me, looking at
the map that he has provided for the new regional offices now or the new
regions themselves and where the offices are located, what criteria did he use
for determining what would comprise a region?
Because I look at the eastern region that goes a fair distance in length
in comparison to the province, it goes more than halfway up the province from
the 49th parallel. Looking at some of
the other districts, there are regions much more compact. What criteria were used to arrive at the
decision to establish these specific regions?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I am hoping I am not
reading some inference into here that the office in the eastern region should
not be in Steinbach. My gosh! Just the fact that I represent the Steinbach
riding certainly should not have any influence in that decision. I would like to think it was based on the
recommendations of staff coming forward, based on the amount of roads in the
general area, and that is the reason why Steinbach was chosen. Steinbach‑‑you know, I am being a
little facetious, but in each one of the regional offices we have established,
it was a district office before. So we
sort of used that as the amalgamating point.
For example, we have Steinbach that used to be a district office before,
and to have that one in Selkirk, for example, would have put it way to the one
extreme if we used the district office in, for example, Portage, sort of the
central one there, Brandon, Dauphin.
Lest the member feel that there was some
political influence in these decisions, I mean, would I have put a regional
office in Dauphin? God forbid that we
would ever have looked at it in that light.
So I just want to clarify that because, most certainly, I feel very
comfortable the way they have been established.
If politics had entered into this thing, I doubt whether there would
have been one in Dauphin.
Mr. Reid: No, I was just listening to the comments by
the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) who, I believe, represents the Lac du Bonnet‑Beausejour
area. He might have liked to have had
the district office in his area. I am
sure there was some internal cabinet debate that took place about where the
office is, but I would not for a moment think that there was any political
considerations made where the offices were located. It is my understanding that the‑‑
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, maybe a little further
clarification for the critics, seriously, in the process of regionalization,
the one thing we did not do, we did not close the existing maintenance yards,
things of that nature. Beausejour basically is our garage and maintenance
operation, so those components are still there throughout the province,
realizing the importance to the community.
So the fact that it is called regional office does not mean that we are
shrinking to any degree the components that are out there as our maintenance
yards, our garages, et cetera.
Mr. Reid: Well, on that note then, does the minister
anticipate, because I am sure there is some forethought or planning that goes
on within the department, that you may have to look at downgrading the number
of satellite yards that you have throughout the province? Is there some plan underway to take that
consideration?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, that is not the intention,
but I have to maybe‑‑and there has been some confusion from the
time that I had the unpleasant responsibility of turning back 2,000 kilometers
of road. That rationale was for saving
some money for the province, and because of that itself, there has been
rationalization in terms of how many maintenance beats we have in the
province. That has had an impact much
more so than anything else, and we did that with planned knowledge that there
would be reduction of certain services in certain areas.
* (1630)
There has always been a little bit of
confusion, because the regionalization is actually putting more people into the
rural area instead of reduction, and I am very cognizant. People tell me that from all communities,
even one employee in a community, a reduction already makes a big difference to
them. So we are very sensitive to that,
and that is not anticipated that we will take and shut these areas down.
Mr. Reid: I am sure these communities will be glad to
hear that.
To get back to my first point, the
criteria that was used to determine what portions of the province would be
included in specific regions, was it based on the number of kilometers of road
systems within that specific area? Is
that one of the criteria that is used, or how do you determine, how did you
arrive at the map that has been provided, which includes specific areas? What considerations were used? Was it the staffing, the number of
communities, the population base, number of kilometers of road? I mean there are many criteria that could be
used. Could you indicate what criteria were used?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, there were a variety of
things that influenced the decision.
First of all, the amalgamation of reducing from 13 districts to five
regionals. For example, let us talk of
the Eastern region. There were three
district offices involved, the one that basically dealt with the surrounding
It was sort of geographic, service‑oriented
types of decisions that we made, based on roads, based on where the district
offices were, because we have to tie that into the maintenance offices as
well. So all these factors combined and
basically helped make the decision.
Madam Chairperson: Item 2.(h) Eastern Region Office, (1) Salaries
$1,753,100‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $489,400‑‑pass.
2.(j) South Central Region Office, (1)
Salaries $1,745,500‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $500,900‑‑pass.
2.(k) South Western Region Office, (1)
Salaries $1,641,200‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $408,100‑‑pass.
2.(m) West Central Region Office, (1)
Salaries $1,237,500.
Mr. Reid: In our haste here I guess I should have asked
the question in the South Western Region, but I am sure the minister will be
able to answer.
There was a position that was eliminated
in the district office under the South Western Region, was that individual
redeployed elsewhere within the regions?
Mr. Driedger: The member is asking why there is a reduction
in that region? Well, I thought I had
explained, Madam Chairperson, that this is a three‑year process where
ultimately, in stages, we are doing the movement of the 40 positions out of
Just because it reflects here at this
time, that figure might be changed for next year depending on the kind of
people we have out there now, in terms of the category of engineer, the
category of our technical people. So the
process is not completed as you see it here today. I mean, we have another two years of process
to finally get the end result here.
He is picking on one position and he has
got me at a disadvantage because I would have to go back and find out exactly
where, out of all the hundreds of positions, this one would be.
Mr. Reid: Not that I want to put the minister at a
disadvantage. If this is going to take
place over a period of time then, is there some way that the minister can
provide some information in the near future or even in steps or increments over
a period of time as he implements his program here, so that we know where the
staff was, what levels we are at in what areas, in comparison to the regions we
are in now so that we can see what is happening as the people transfer into
those. Is there any way to have that
communication back and forth so we can have an understanding of what is taking
place? Because if it is going to take
place over two or three years as the minister indicates, three years, then
obviously he is at a disadvantage now trying to indicate. People are being lost now and they may be
gaining later, but if we are kept aware of what is taking place, then maybe
that would answer our questions.
Mr. Driedger: I am prepared‑‑if it would be of
any assistance to the members‑‑to give you the final anticipated
outcome once we are finished with the regionalization. I hope the member does not want me to start
going back and finding out exactly which secretary or which engineer or which
surveyor because then I am getting into horrendous problems with that. But I am prepared to give an outline of what
basically will happen in the regions at the conclusion of our regionalization.
[interjection] Yes. Sorry, Madam Chairperson, I am sort of getting in here once
in a while.
I am prepared to take and give that
information but not today. I will get
that ready and I will have that‑‑not tomorrow either.
Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that. It is just so that I have an idea of‑‑and
I am sure the other critic would be interested as well‑‑where we
started with the staffing and where we will end up and the type of staffing
component make‑up for those different areas. I do not need to know the individuals who are
in those jobs, just the numbers and the types of people who are in that by
profession whether it be technical, managerial or support.
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I am going to try and
provide, you know, the best information I can in terms of exactly where we
started from and where we end up. If
there are further questions after that, then I am prepared to deal with that
even at a later time. It does not have
to necessarily be dealt with here, but I will give you an outline exactly as to
what is going to be happening.
Mr. Gaudry: Madam Chairperson, just going back here, in
South Western Region there was one position eliminated due to regionalization,
I understand that. But then we look to
the Western Central Region where a position was transferred to
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I am trying to be very
reasonable in trying to explain this.
There was a position transfer from
Just because a position is transferred
does not mean that a warm body had to go with it. We have allowed the competitive bidding to
take place in the process throughout as we went through the various
levels. That is why this is not that cut
and dry a process. That is why we are
looking at three years to ultimately accomplish what we are trying to do.
Mr. Gaudry: In the cutting back of regional offices to
five from 13, I believe you said‑‑
Mr. Driedger: Thirteen districts to‑‑
Mr. Gaudry: ‑‑13 districts to five regional,
and you have maintained some yards or buildings in the other regions. You still maintain staff in those areas?
* (1640)
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I have mentioned before
that we still have all our subdistricts, areas where we had our maintenance
yards. Those will all remain. We are not shutting down any of that. There is going to be some adjustment of
staff, but that could probably be attributed to the changing of our maintenance
beats which we have. Some movement
within, but by and large, the communities that have facilities will now retain
them.
Mr. Gaudry: So if I understand very clearly, we will be
able to see this in the information that the minister will provide us over the
period that this transition is going to occur.
Mr. Driedger: Yes. I
think possibly, by the time I get that information to members, that they will
probably have a better feel for it in terms of what is happening.
Madam Chairperson: Item 2.(m) West Central Region Office, (1)
Salaries $1,237,500‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $254,700‑‑pass.
Item 2.(n) Northern Region Office, (1)
Salaries $1,002,100‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $304,500‑‑(pass).
Resolution 15.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $70,366,800 for Highways and Transportation, Operations and
Maintenance, $70,366,800 for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
3. Planning and Design and Land Surveys,
(a) Planning and Design.
Mr. Reid: I have several questions here, Madam
Chairperson. It is obvious that the
Planning and Design plays an important function in the minister's overall
department, and I know that I had the opportunity last year to go and talk with
some of his staff there. I found them
very co‑operative, very helpful.
It appears, at least, that with the
revenues, for the province having some difficulties right now, as well as the
LGDs in municipalities having some difficulties with their revenues, what type
of planning is taking place at this time with projects that may be
anticipated? Are we looking at any major
projects, planning taking place at this time, or are we seeing a significant
reduction in overall planning?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, let me first of all
introduce a newcomer who has just joined us here, Andy Horosko, who is my
director of Planning and Design. Andy
joins us from
If members at any time have concerns about
what is going on, Andy is the one who basically has a good idea exactly what
stage his projects, what level they are at and what stage they are at.
The member asked whether we have any major
planning going on. All the time,
virtually 24 hours a day, under the program that we have signed with the
federal government, we have major structures part of it. We can probably deal with it better under
capital, but the northeast Perimeter, for example, which involves major
structures, underpass, overpass, et cetera‑‑we have major bridges
that are in the design stage at the present time, major projects in terms of
twinning. In fact, this department is
challenged to the maximum in terms of their planning and designing capabilities
for the simple reason that all the people in rural areas invariably always want
their roads upgraded. With strong
encouragement from my colleagues in my benches and some from the other side‑‑you
know, we always have people saying, well, when are you going to upgrade our
road? As we can, we prioritize them in
terms of the stages that they have to go through. Once we have prioritized, let us say, a road
or a project, then the first thing is the survey and design aspect of it and
the environmental licence, after which, once we have that, then we go to the
acquisition of right‑of‑way and then ultimately the letting of a
contract. So this is the first and most
important stage in terms of getting projects into the system and completed.
We have a whole variety of projects. In fact, I think we are looking at something‑‑I
think projecting as far as a three‑year program, you know, that we have
projects that we then pull down and proceed with. I do not know how to explain it any
differently. There is an awful lot of
this going on at any given time.
Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for raising the
northeast Perimeter project, because I know the minister had made a commitment
to that. The MLA for River East (Mrs.
Mitchelson) had made that commitment, as well, that that project would be
completed or at least underway prior to the next provincial election. I hope to see that take place. Of course, that would relieve some of the
traffic congestion‑‑I am talking truck traffic‑‑from my
own community that would border on that project.
Can the minister give me an indication,
since his department has signed an agreement with the federal government for
that project‑‑and it impacts upon the MLA for Springfield (Mr.
Findlay) as well‑‑when we could anticipate seeing the start‑up
of that project? At what point are we at
now with the planning of that project?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, actually I do not know
where‑‑I am very flexible in terms of where I deal with this,
whether I deal with this under Capital or whether I deal with this under
Planning and Design.
The agreement that we signed with the
federal government, called Strategic Highway Improvement Program, SHIP, is what
we make reference to. I want to
emphasize this, S‑H‑I‑P, not T. I want to clarify that, because from the time
that we made the announcement, there has been all kinds of interest and
speculation from throughout the province that this program would allow us to
build wherever we wanted to.
In fact, we have cut a two‑year deal
with the federal government, where the other provinces to the west of us have
basically cut a five‑year deal for the same amount of money. In fact,
Now, the way this process evolved at the
time when the economic statement was made by Mazankowski on December 2, we had
awaited the National Highways Program to be announced; this did not
happen. We were rather agitated and
disappointed. Subsequent to that, discussions started with the federal
government, because actually in the economic statement they had not mentioned
Starting from that evening, negotiations
started. Ultimately, Mr. Corbeil, the federal minister, authorized Jake Epp,
the M.P., to do negotiations on behalf of the federal government with
We submitted, I believe, something like
$250 million worth of projects to Mr. Epp to pick from in terms of the $70
million which was a joint agreement ultimately.
By and large, he prioritized the projects that he felt they would
support from the federal perspective and that is how ultimately we arrived at
the program that I have approval for, a $70‑million program which deals
with, as I said in my comments before, the continued twinning of Highway No. 1,
the continued twinning of Highway 75, the continued upgrading of 16, although I
would have liked to have seen more money spent on that one and, also, specific
projects‑‑the upgrading of the bridge or the overpass, Portage west
and the Perimeter, which is restricted.
* (1650)
We were fortunate enough to tie in the
northeast Perimeter, which we consider part of the eventual National Highways
Program. This is a two‑year
program, so we really have to escalate some of the activities. We had done preliminary work in terms of
design work on the northeast Perimeter because we have Highway 15 and we have
two major rail networks that are involved.
In the case of Highway 15 and the railway which is right adjacent we
have an underpass and at CP we have an overpass.
I can indicate to the member that we will
be tendering the first of these series this summer because we have to get that
all in within the time parameters that the federal government has allowed. Part of the project is the underpass; that is
the first stage.
Mr. Reid: To give the minister the opportunity to
confer with his staff a bit there, I will ask another question.
If we are tendering the contract, the
portion of the contract that he is going to let I imagine will be in stages. The portion that the minister is talking
about dealing with the underpass at Highway 15 and the CNR main line, is that
going to be undertaken and started construction this summer and then continue
until completion and then other portions of the contract let at a further point
in time along including the overpass at the CPR and the roadbed itself, or when
can we anticipate seeing the other portions of the project go ahead?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, both those projects‑‑there
are two specific projects with 15 and the railway‑‑will be
undertaken this summer and started this summer.
Now once we have started a project of that nature it is very much like
Highway 75, it is a matter of how much you want to prioritize it and the
continuation of doing it. Once we have
made this kind of investment commitment then I would anticipate based on
funding of course, there will be ongoing activities in terms of completing that
whole northeast Perimeter.
Mr. Reid: I am at a loss here, because I do not
understand the complete process. I
thought that when money was committed to the project, that was enough to cover
the whole project. Is money only
committed in stages for portions of the project as we go along and that as we
progress each stage has to be approved before monies for the next portion of
the project are allocated. Is that how the process works?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, out of the $70 million
with the projects that we have identified, we have not identified the whole
total northeast Perimeter under this program.
We had to look at projects that we could move within the first two years
which is why we actually had a jump on other provinces because we were
basically more advanced under our National Highways Program concept, in terms
of projects that we could bring forward, than most of the other provinces.
So there are only two elements of the
northeast Perimeter that are under the SHIP program. One is the twinning from No. 1 to 15, the
dualing of it, which will be graded, I believe, next year. We will be paving it next year which is part
of the SHIP program, and then the two structures on 15. That is basically the three components that
are involved in the northeast Perimeter under the SHIP program.
Mr. Reid: Maybe it would be better, in the sake of
saving time here, if I was to contact the minister's department, if that is all
right, and sit down with some of his staff to get a better understanding from
the planning people on what steps they anticipate taking, if that is all right
with the minister.
Mr. Driedger: I have always tried to be very accommodating
with the member. I want to be a little
cautious how much I would like to have him meet with my planning people because
the next thing you know he is starting to influence them and they start giving
me recommendations that I would find hard to accept. So I want to be a little cautious.
However, once we have the Estimates
finished and depending on the kind of abuse I have had to take, we could
probably take and maybe make the office available and have him look at the long‑range
plans, exactly what we are doing there.
Mr. Reid: I would appreciate that opportunity to meet
with the minister and any of his staff that may be available at that time. I know I have received some phone calls and
letters from residents of my own community, as maybe the other members have in
the surrounding area as well, and it would be nice if I had some more
background and a time frame attached to it so that I might be able to answer
the correspondence that comes to my office.
So I will look forward to that meeting with the minister.
Can the minister indicate under Planning
and Design whether or not we utilize the
Mr. Driedger: We do not use UMTI at all for any of our
planning and design. We use them for
doing some research, and I am prepared to deal with what we have done with UMTI
when we get to the grant portion of it in here, because then I have my
qualified people here at that time.
Mr. Reid: Under the activity identification it
indicates traffic studies and statistics.
Can the minister indicate: Are
these just localized traffic studies that are done or are there major traffic
distribution patterns and studies that may be done throughout the course of the
major population centre areas?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, this would involve all
traffic activities throughout the province, whether it is
So when we talk of traffic patterns,
depending upon the terrain, whether we have rolling terrain and the type of
gradient we make, our curves to comply with, let us say, a PTH standard is of a
higher quality standard than a PR standard.
If it is a paved road compared to a gravel road, different standards are
used depending on the speed limit that we anticipate on our PTHs. For example, we have 100 clicks per hour
speed limit, so our gradients and curves, our approaches on dips, all these
things have a bearing on it, and these are all the things that are all compiled
in terms of making the decision as to the type of work that we undertake.
Mr. Reid: I take it then that there are no specific
projects or studies that are ongoing with overall traffic then. It is localized issues for specific areas
then. I will not belabour that point.
Can the minister indicate the number of
permits that would have been issued for access development of properties that
are adjacent to provincial roads or highways?
Do we receive payment for those permits?
If so, what type of dollar value does that represent? Can the minister also indicate the number of
permits that might have been issued, if that information is available?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I should maybe explain
that where an application for access onto a PTH is made, that is basically
dealt with by the Highway Traffic Board, where an application then is made and
they have a hearing and make a decision.
Our Chairperson here is well aware how that process works. They also deal with the speed limits, et
cetera. On the PR roads, basically, it
is my department that deals with it, and we have certain criteria that we use
for that.
I am just looking to see whether I can get
more specific information.
* (1700)
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Committee
Report
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): The Committee
of Supply has adopted a certain resolution, directs me to report the same and
asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member
for Emerson (Mr. Penner), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
PRIVATE MEMBERS'
BUSINESS
DEBATE ON
SECOND READINGS‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 200‑The
Child and Family Services Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that that matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Also standing in the name of the
honourable member for
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
There was unanimous support from both
opposition parties but, unfortunately, the government would not listen to the
voice of the people and to all groups who were advocating that the Child
Advocate would report to the Legislature.
For that reason, our side of the House has brought in this private
members' bill that will hopefully address the concerns that we have with the
way this government is dealing with it.
Particularly, it is very important that this happen right now and the
Child Advocate report to the Legislature in light of what is happening in this
province, in light of the high poverty rates we have and the problems the
children in this province are facing and lack of avenues to go through to raise
their concern.
Mr. Speaker, in Estimates, in the last
couple of days, the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) asked the Minister of
Family Services several times about the Child Advocate and what role they would
play and whether they were making recommendations to the minister since he had
made changes and made reductions to the budget.
The minister continued to say that they had just been talking and there
were no recommendations made on the proposed budget cuts. It is a shame that the minister would not
tell people what was going on, that there were real concerns. In fact, we had to get a leaked document to
indicate what is really going on and to tell us that the Child Advocate is very
concerned and has made recommendations to the minister regarding the cuts,
particularly the cuts to the basic maintenance fee of foster parents.
Part of the letter says, you have also
made a number of comments regarding the process of how children are often
placed and ignored by the agency. Foster
parents are expected to give 100 percent or more to these children, many of
whom have received little or no information regarding their specific needs or
problems.
Oftentimes, foster parents feel that they
are nothing but a dumping ground and warehouse for children, and the agencies
are not fulfilling their legislative responsibility to assure that these
children are getting the assistance that they require in addressing their
needs.
As a consequence of the current practice
and attitudes of agencies, foster parents are feeling children are left in a
vulnerable situation. Agencies are
described as ignoring pleas for assistance by foster parents to meet the needs
of these children. In one instance, one
of you stated that she had had no contact from a child care worker in over two
years.
Mr. Speaker, foster parents play a very
important role in this province, across the country. Unfortunately, there are many, many children
who cannot live in their own homes. It
is just human nature, many families cannot get along. Children end up out on the streets. Without foster parents to support these
children, without putting the proper funds in place to support foster parents,
we are going to lose that very important service.
What will happen to the children? The children are going to end up staying in hotels,
in the Place Louis Riel or other hotels that are going to cost much, much more
than what this government is presently paying to foster parents. What is the quality of care that we get when
we put children in hotels? Is there any
contact? Is there any support? Is there any family building there? No, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing for these
children.
It is disappointing that this is one of
the areas the government should choose to cut back on its funding in the
supports for foster parents and in its supports for our young people. As I said, Mr. Speaker, we have a very high
poverty rate in this province, a very high drop‑out rate of children in
schools. We have to have the supports in
place. We have to have the place for
children to go when they can‑‑they have to have access to the
Child's Advocate. They have to also know
that is a safe place for them to go and that they can get the guidance they
need when they get into these difficult situations.
What this government is doing with the
cutbacks they have made just shows that there is a lack of compassion, a lack
of support, a lack of caring for our young people in this province. These are
the people who are our future. If we are
not prepared to invest in them and if we are not prepared to invest in those
people who offer the caring and support for them, there is something wrong in
this province.
I would hope that the government would
realize the errors they have made in their legislation. It would be much better to have the Child's
Advocate report to the Legislature rather than to the minister. I hope they will consider the merits of this
private member's bill and that they will very seriously consider this as an
amendment that will help improve the quality of life but also improve the
accesses that are available to our young children.
* (1710)
If the government would say that they
support this legislation, I think they would regain some of their standing in
the community amongst those workers who work on behalf of children but are very
frustrated at the present time with the way this government is dealing with our
young people and with the supports that they are putting in place.
We have not seen that this government is
willing to make these changes, but it is our hope they will realize that what
they have done is wrong. We have to have
this legislation changed so that we can have a fairer system put in place.
Mr. Speaker, again I want to mention the
fact that it is regrettable that the government has chosen to take such
advantage of foster parents, who have given of their time, who give of their
time over the years and want to be considered much more than warehouses for
young children. They offer the supports,
but they also have to be rewarded. I
have talked to many foster parents who have done an excellent job, and in
reality, they basically many times give of their time for virtually nothing.
They are on 24‑hour call. They
spend all their time‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.
Bill 202‑The
Residential Tenancies Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), Bill 202, The Residential Tenancies
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la location a usage d'habitation,
standing in the name of the honourable member for Portage La Prairie (Mr.
Pallister).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand.
Is there‑‑[interjection] Which one?
Bill 200‑The
Child and Family Services Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On Bill 200?
Okay.
Order, please. I did not recognize the honourable member for
Wolseley, so we are going to revert to Bill 200. As previously agreed, this matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer),
but at this time, I will recognize the honourable member for Wolseley.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have the
opportunity to speak on this bill. It is
a bill, I think, which is very timely, given the exchange in Estimates
yesterday with the Minister of Family Services and indeed in Question Period
today, a very striking example of the direct need for an independent Child
Advocate who will have the opportunity to report to all of the Legislature and
indeed to the public in that way rather than to be essentially a part of the
ministerial staff of the Department of Family Services.
It is this principle of independence and
of open public reporting to a broader public and to the Legislature that is at
the heart of this bill. Though it has
significance for today and for the actions of the Child Advocate, who is
currently in the process of assuming his position and, I hope, indeed defining
for himself an independent path in that particular position, it does have
significance for that. But indeed, Mr.
Speaker, this bill was proposed some time before, and it is a bill which adopts
the principles which were supported by a number of reports to this government.
This is not a bill which comes entirely
from one particular party. It comes from
a number of political angles and from institutions in our community. The Children's Advocate reporting mechanism
has been supported by the Kimelman Report, by the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry,
although I hesitate to bring the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry to the attention of
this government. They certainly have buried it somewhere deep in the
archeological files of the government, a major inquiry which they have no
intention of paying any attention to any further, but that particular report
did recommend and support the idea of an independent Children's Advocate. The Suche report and also the Reid Sigurdson
Report on child abuse, reports which go back a considerable way in the history
of this province, also supported this mechanism of an independent reporting
line to the Legislature. This is not
proposed to be an independent Child Advocate in the judicial sense, but it is
that sense of open public reporting which we believe would be an important part
of any progressive child social system in
We have a great deal of experience with
legislative committees and open public reporting in Manitoba, and, indeed, I
think it is something which all parties have taken some responsibility for and
some pride in when they speak of the activities of the Manitoba Legislature to
other groups. Every bill in the Manitoba
Legislature goes to a second reading where there is the opportunity for any
person, anywhere in Manitoba and indeed sometimes from outside of Manitoba, to
make representations on matters which concern them and their families and the
future of this province.
It is a very important principle and one
which I think every member of this House would defend. It is certainly one which I have seen over my
very short time in the Legislature‑‑I have seen an increasing
number of people becoming aware of this particular process and eager to take
advantage of it. Indeed, I was at a
meeting of senor citizens about a month ago and it had come to their
attention. Although most of them had
lived all of their lives in
So I think in the history of
Many people were very concerned about the
implications that that had for labour management relations in
I know that the larger community, not just
the interested professionals such as social workers, but the foster families,
the lawyers who deal with child welfare issues, the families themselves who are
concerned and have been affected by the child welfare system certainly would
welcome this opportunity to have an independent advocate report to the
Legislature and to have that open public opportunity to question and to listen
to the work of that advocate in Manitoba.
There are times when those open public
committees have had the opportunity to make genuine amendments to legislation. I remember a number of times in the Municipal
Affairs committee when Urban Affairs has been dealing with a number of issues
in The City of Winnipeg Act. I remember
that there were in fact one or two occasions in which constructive solutions
came from presenters and where amendments were made on the spot and were
accepted by both government and opposition.
It was a very fast, immediate, direct
connection between people and their political representatives. I can think of no more important step that this
government could take in the process of government than opening up public
committees, making people aware that they do have the opportunity simply to
listen or, indeed, to make presentations.
The Child Advocacy bill gives them an opportunity to do this in an area
which is important to every
It is particularly important, Mr. Speaker,
when I listen to particularly federal politicians, particularly those of the
deep blue Tory stripe who are spending so much time now after they have had 10,
15 years to run this country into the ground and to change the relationships
between communities and, indeed, within families. If we are going to look at the needs of
children in this province, one of the very first places we should look is at
the way in which the federal government's withdrawal from social programs, the
federal government's attack on the tax system and the federal government's
attack on transfer payments to the provinces, the way in which all of these
activities have, in fact, contributed to the growing poverty amongst Manitoba
families and Manitoba children.
* (1720)
However, I do listen to these people, the
retread from the Socred Party, Ms. Kim Campbell, and Jean Charest, the young
cabinet minister, who seem to be spending a great deal of their time talking
about the process of government and how we have to, quote, and I have to quote,
because it churns my stomach even to listen to it, how we have to change the
process of government so that we make contact again with the people and we
restore the confidence of people in government.
I can think of no greater hypocrisy on the
part of those Conservatives who have spent the last 10 years destroying this
country and destroying the dreams of families and working people right across
this country, and they now have the audacity and the disgusting political gall,
in fact, to talk about restoring the confidence of the people in
government. It is not the way that
government has been conducted in this country.
It is what the Tories have done to this country and what they have done
to the people of
Let us think of what the image of
The reality is very different, because the
one thing that
Many of them are indeed what I would still
consider children, young mothers of 16, 17 years old who are now faced with
increasing poverty as a result of this budget and this government, another set
of Tories whose main argument seems to me the absolute opposite of the truth,
the idea that all people are sharing the pain equally. I have never been so appalled at an argument
in my life as I have by this particular Tory argument of the day.
What is happening in
What happens as the result of the child
poverty that we are seeing in
In the grades that they are in, we know
that children who are poor and who are hungry are much more likely to be
working at a level below their grade.
They are much more likely, more frequently kept back in elementary
school, and after a series of these kinds of setbacks, the self‑esteem of
such children becomes much lower and lower.
Gradually, as a result of initial poverty and initial hunger, in some
cases with what might have been temporary, you are in fact set into a cycle of
increasing poverty and increasing amount of work and activity for the person
who will take on the burdens of a Child Advocate.
The burden of special education classes,
of feeding of poor children, is going to fall upon the school system of
Amongst those of course, amongst the
burdens of poverty which we see in the inner city of
I would hope, too, that a Child Advocate
would be able to look at the image of Winnipeg, the face of Winnipeg, the face
of poverty, the face of child poverty that we are presenting to the rest of
Canada, that they will be able to look at that and give advice to the public to
open the issue generally and to bring to the attention of all parties the very,
very serious nature of a condition that Manitoba is facing.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to speak
to this bill and talk a little bit about how this government is woefully
inadequate in meeting the needs of children in our province.
It just goes to show, today we are finding
out just how important it is to have this Child Advocate's office report to the
Legislature. Not only because of the
fact that there are so many children and youth in this province who are not
having, especially as wards of the state, their right to security, food,
clothing and shelter being met, but that the lack of funding to government
departments responsible for protecting and ensuring rights of children are not
being able to do that.
We need some kind of a mechanism to make
that public. We see here today that we
found out, in an indirect way already, that the Advocate is doing his job and
is making recommendations on behalf of children in this province, and in fact
the minister is choosing to not make that information public.
Now this is very serious. A little while ago, I was asking questions
related to the number of young people in
* (1730)
What we are hearing every other chance
they get, that is in fact what they are doing.
We are living, they say, in economic times that are tough‑‑tough
economic times. Well, what that means,
Mr. Speaker, to so many children is that they go hungry. They live in fear
continually because economic hard times so often mean that more children are
living in violent situations, living in poverty and living with neglect.
Those are the kinds of things that this
government has the legal mandate to ensure does not happen in
There are a lot of us on this side of the
House that have a vision for an economy and a democracy that puts children at
the centre. So the reason that we have
an economy, the reason that we have a democracy is to ensure that the rights
and the needs of children are met first.
Not after you have maximized profits, not after you have balanced your
budget, but first.
Mr. Speaker, that is why we have a Child's
Advocate, to make sure that government agencies are doing that very thing, that
they are doing what they are set up to do, to make sure that children are
having their rights protected.
This government, I would ask, what are
they afraid of? Why are they not
choosing to have this advocate for children report directly to the
Legislature? Could it be that they know
the caseloads for Child and Family Services are so high that there is not a
possible chance? That those social
workers and counsellors and advocates who are there to advocate on behalf of
youth are struggling day after day on the front line to do that. This government provides no services, Mr.
Speaker, for children who fall through the system. There is no direct funding from this
provincial government for the thousands of children in this city who are living
on the streets, who reap their living off the streets. In a country and a province as affluent and
as developed as
Children have historically been at the
mercy of adults, their parents, teachers, government officials. And the rights of children are something that
we should all be able to identify with because all of us have come from being
children. All of us should be able to
remember times in our life when we felt the powerlessness that children are
faced with who are neglected and who are in situations that are dangerous to
them.
This advocate is so important, and it is so
important that we have it reporting to the Legislature, because we do not live
in a perfect world and there are a number of people who enter the professions
of teaching, or child care worker, or social worker, recreation worker, youth
worker, who often do not have the best interests of children at heart. These are the people in positions of power
over children. They are also in the
courts. They are in a number of other places.
They may be lawyers, they may be psychologists, and we hear horror story
after horror story when it is those people who are in positions of power, who
are given responsibility to advocate for children and do not do that, that have
the most tremendous disastrous effects when they misrepresent and abuse
children. That is what this office is
designed to do.
I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I
still have a lot of colleagues, because I worked so much in the youth field,
who talk to me regularly about the disastrous stories of children who are
facing horrible situations and are considered expendable. I know for a fact there have been allegations
and I know that they are fact, that Child and Family Services does not have the
capability to deal specifically with children who are 16 and 17 years old and
there is the attitude, hey, they are going to be 18 soon, let us worry about
the younger ones that we do have a chance to do something for, because we are
not going to have the responsibility for those children who are turning 18
soon.
It is a pretty sad day in our society when
certain‑aged young people are considered to be write‑offs or ones
that we might as well not waste our time with.
Those are the kinds of words that get used. It is because people working in professions
there to benefit children are so overburdened, teachers are so overburdened
with the kind of demands that are being placed on them in our public school
system.
It is a very complex situation, Mr.
Speaker, but we are not even beginning to deal with the things that we know are
solutions. We know, and it is amazing to
see, even after a child is horribly abused, how quickly they can respond when
you respect them, when you give them some responsibility and show them some
appreciation and tell them what their rights are.
It is amazing and it is very gratifying to
work with young people and see the change happen to them when they are finally
in an environment where they are shown respect.
We know that that can be taught, and the earlier that intervention
occurs, the better. We know that.
I have with me a number of curricula that
I still have in my office. This is one
from‑‑it is called Skills for Violence‑Free
Relationships. It is a curriculum for
young people between 13 and 18 years old.
I used this in the schools when I was working there, and it is amazing
to see how quickly kids can learn skills so that they do not have to resort to
the behaviours that have been done to them.
They quickly change the patterns and break the chains of violence and
victimization.
We know that peer‑helping programs
work. I have a manual for teaching kids
how to use their often natural leadership skills to not focus on becoming the
leader of a gang that is going to do B&Es and perpetrate violence, but how
they can learn to become more positive leaders.
But this government does not seem to make
the connections that there are serious, serious human costs to the kind of
economic policy that they practice, and that in the long run‑‑as I
asked the Minister for Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer)‑‑it is
much more expensive to treat young people, especially for illnesses like AIDS
and HIV, than to fund things like Planned Parenthood so that they do not have
unsafe sex, or to fund organizations like the Street Kids and Youth program so
there are going to be that many fewer kids who are not on the streets swapping
needles and having unprotected sex.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to be that the
members opposite do not like to face those realities. [interjection] The
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) seems to have woken up.
* (1740)
An Honourable Member: I think you are stupid. I think you are out of touch.
Point of
Order
Ms. Cerilli: The Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) just
called me stupid. I would ask that you
call him to his feet and ask him to withdraw that remark.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Chair did not hear the remark of the
honourable member‑‑for Radisson.
Therefore, I cannot rule on the honourable member's point of order.
* * *
Ms. Cerilli: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is a very serious situation‑‑
Some Honourable
Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Ms. Cerilli: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I think that comments like that only
encourage the same thinking that is becoming more common in the public mind
with regard to the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard).
Mr. Speaker, I was commenting, when the
Minister for Health starting making comments, about the fact that prevention of
problems in the long run is far less expensive both in economic costs and in
human costs, that it is shown in study after study, if you put the money into
youth intervention programs, into recreation, arts and sport programs for young
people, so that you are telling them we do not want you to become involved in
destructive behaviour, that we are giving you some other option.
But the Minister of Health does not seem
to understand that funding programs like StreetLinks, like the Street Kids and
Youth project, funding programs like the Planned Parenthood program which are
preventative in‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister
of Health): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my honourable friend
might permit a question so she does not continue to spread falsehoods.
Mr. Speaker: That would be up to the honourable member for
Radisson.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health will have
a chance to ask me questions after I have finished my remarks.
Mr. Orchard: Okay, fair enough.
* * *
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that preventative
programs are cost‑effective. All
those programs that I listed are cheaper than treating people with sexually
transmitted diseases, particularly AIDS and HIV. This government does not seem to want to face
up to the fact that their economic policy not only creates more poverty, which
puts more people at risk, particularly children, but also in the long run is
very costly in terms of our justice system, in terms of our health system, in
terms of our social welfare needs and costs.
It is very simple to understand that, but we also know that threatens
the traditional balance of power that their party and government support.
I just want to ask you how much more time
I have, Mr. Speaker, because I want to spend some time talking about the rights
of the child. [interjection] Thank you.
The convention of the rights of the child
for the U.N. was passed, and this country supported it. This government has the responsibility for
figuring out how each department is going to ensure that all children have the
right to learn to be useful members of society, to develop individual
abilities. They have the right to a name
and a nationality. They have the right
to adequate nutrition, housing and health care.
They have the right to love, affection and understanding, the right to
free education and a full opportunity for play and recreation.
I would emphasize that just those rights
are not subject to economics. They are
not subject to the fact that this child or that child may have the good fortune
or the misfortune to be born into a family of lesser means or more affluent
means.
Mr. Speaker, in closing I would like this
government to be mindful of the rights of the child under the U.N. convention
that this country has signed. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to allow the
honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) to ask a question of the honourable
member for Radisson, who has agreed to answer a question?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
An Honourable Member: No.
An Honourable Member: Are you denying leave? The NDP is denying leave.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let us ascertain whether or not there is
leave. Is there leave of the House?
An Honourable Member: Is he going to speak on this?
Mr. Speaker: No.
Is there leave of the House, because the
honourable member for Radisson has indicated that she would allow the honourable
Minister of Health to ask a question, but that can only be done if there is
leave of the House. Is there leave?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Okay.
The honourable Minister of Health has leave for one question.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my honourable
friend the member for Radisson if she will not acknowledge that the Street
LINKS program is now being operated by Mount Carmel Clinic with expanded hours,
delivering more services to more of those at‑risk children in terms of
education, prevention and counselling than ever before in its two‑year
trial period. Will my honourable friend
acknowledge that instead of spreading the falsehoods that it does not exist
anymore?
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, I referred to that program as an
example of a preventative program. Part
of being a preventative program is dealing at the grassroots on the front lines
with people. There is a different
approach to programs also like the Street Kids and Youth program which manage
to be right there on the ground. I would
say that there is a difference in the delivery of this program, and there is
going to be a difference in the results.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments
on Bill 200 and speak to the amendment that my honourable colleague has put
forth, and that is the Children's Advocate report to the Legislative Assembly
as a whole.
I would think that from the reports and
the studies that we have had‑‑I personally and we as a party, and
the communities and the people out in the organizations, cannot see reasons why
this government would not allow the Children's Advocate to report directly to
the Legislative Assembly and not just to one minister or one body or one
director or what.
I have been out in the constituency in the
last couple of weeks since the budget was presented and debated. We talk about the councillors‑‑the
people whom I talked to talk about the cuts.
They talk about the deficit, but primarily what they talk about, that I
hear a lot out there, is the fact that the children and the poor are being
affected the most within this province with the cuts that we have seen imposed
upon us and our children and the people of
I am a father of two children. I do my best to provide support for my
children. I do my best to make sure they
are taken of. I do my best, with the
situation that we are in, as members of the House, to provide a need for the
children, for our own children and for the children out in our communities.
I know, in my own community, I see and
have seen in the last six years‑‑how could I word this?‑‑a
sense of poorness of support in the communities since I have had the
opportunity of moving to the Interlake.
Within my own community, I see the children everywhere running
around. I see children in the school
system and children of my daughter's age who are going to kindergarten and
going to school not being taken care of.
They are not clean. They are
hungry.
We have no basis to be able to provide a
service for these children and to provide for their needs. We have no one really who can stand up and
speak for the children, speak for the needs, speak to the government at the
time to be able to provide the services that are so essential.
An example of how the children of this
province are being deserted, if I may, and really almost forgotten.
The fact was brought up today in the LGD
of Grahamdale, speaking again to councillors, and their concern was the effect
of the cut to the dental program, for example, that was imposed on the children
of Manitoba. Approximately 60,000 young
people are being affected by this cut.
Positions, people who took care of the children's needs as far as the
dental program goes are gone. We talked
about it today. We talked about it
today, how it is going to affect the whole community in and around the
Moosehorn area, the Ashern area.
These children, a primary amount of them
that are being treated and are being helped and assisted, come from the four or
five reserves that are within the Moosehorn, Ashern area. Where are they going to go now, Mr.
Speaker? To whom can they turn to help
with the program or with the dental problems that they may have?
* (1750)
Anyone knows prevention is probably the
greatest cure for down‑the‑road high costs and bigger
problems. The concern is there, concern
for the fact that we need to have someone, a body, someone that will have the
advantage to take a child's problem, whatever it may be, whether it may be
through the judicial system, whether it be in health, whether it be in Child
and Family Services, whether it be a child in my community, a child in the
community of the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) or anywhere, that he can take
this child's problem and issue a need to all of us here.
I think it should be very, very important,
very important that we should all be aware of the problems that are out there
for the needs of our children, not just one individual, Mr. Speaker, who keeps
it within himself and basically uses his authority to either squash it or go
ahead with it or deal with it or stop it altogether. Do we all need to know the answers? Do we all need to know the problems out
there? Yes we do.
I think we should all be aware of the
problems that our children are facing in today's society, the abuse, the lack
of care, the lack of food, the lack of shelter.
Now, and with the growing concerns that we have, and I have seen in the
last four or five years the growing problems that we have with the children's
needs in the communities in rural
In my own community the situation has
increased. The problems have
increased. The kids have nowhere to
go. The kids have nowhere to get service,
to get any type of medical attention, any type of attention if they are being
abused. It is not there anymore, Mr.
Speaker. What has happened, and what I
have seen and what I have learned, and which, I must say‑‑I am very
proud to say this in the House‑‑I have seen situations where
children are not being able to be taken care of within their own family
situation, poverty, too many children in the family. What I have seen is something that I feel we
should all take notice of. That is the
fact that people take upon themselves to offer their homes, to offer their
services on a personal basis, to come to you or to someone in the community who
is having problems and they take them in.
They do not have to be family. It is not a family matter. Because my
cousin's son is not being fed properly, taken care of properly because they
cannot, I should take him in because it is my responsibility as a family. Well, unfortunately that does not occur all
the time. There is not family to take
care of them, just like we are not being taken care of by the government of the
day. So what they do is they take these
young children in and they keep them.
They take care of them, and they provide them with whatever is possible. That is what I have learned in the past few
years, and what I have seen that occurs.
Really where the first indication was, Mr. Speaker, was on some of the
reserves that are in my constituency that I visited.
When we talked about child care and the
problems facing the aboriginal communities and the rural communities where the
children are suffering, where financially they are unable to be looked after,
they say, well, we are taking them in.
We will take them in. We will not
let the 4‑, 5‑, 6‑year‑old go days without food,
without getting clean, because it is our basic responsibility, human responsibility.
I think that we should allow the
Children's Advocate, and I am using an example, to be able to come to the
Assembly and say here is a problem with the situation with the children,
whether it be with the foster parent side of it, whether it be with the dental
issue, whether it be just with abuse, whether it be the fact that there is no
one to take care of them, for abuse of alcohol or abuse of any substance. Where is that? How is a Children's Advocate really going to
be able to do the job, that I feel and we here feel, a proper job, to have our
children taken care of?
Under this legislation that the government
has seen fit to put through, it is not going to happen. Members on the other side and members here
may say, well, we do not want to know. We
do not want to know about the problems.
We do not want to know if there is a problem. I do not want to know if there is a
children's problem within the Department of Justice that cannot be resolved,
that cannot be taken care of. Why
not? Because perhaps the minister of
Child and Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) will decide that it is not an
important issue enough. Perhaps it is
too political. Perhaps there may be
something there that he is not aware of or wants to be aware of, so he says
no. What happens then, Mr. Speaker?
Then we have a situation where a child or
children are going to end up suffering.
Should that be? Should we just
say, as representatives or anyone, that is okay that those children‑‑we
are not concerned about them. It is not
our concern. I do not want to worry
about it.
I think it is a concern. It is a tremendous concern. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just also make a
comment with this that, as a result of some of the cuts and that that this government
has imposed on us, especially with the Foster Family Association, I use this
and the cuts that have been imposed with the fact, as I had mentioned earlier
to this House, about how other people take it upon themselves to take
care. But, there are people, there are
families out there who are willing and able, with some due support from
government, to provide and take these children in no matter what age they may
be, a lesson from our aboriginal communities that help and support their own.
I feel that the opportunity right here,
with the Foster Family Association being cut as it has, is going to devastate
the problems that we have within our communities, with our foster
children. Who is going to be the biggest
sufferer? The children. Who is going to suffer the most, you or I? Not likely, but the children, the hundreds of
children out there, the thousands of children out there who are not being taken
care of with the dental program, the thousands of children who are going to be
left without a foster home or be left in a hotel room for days, not knowing
where they are going to be.
Mr. Speaker, if there is a situation that
has to be responded to, is it going to be responded to? [interjection] That is right. A reduced workweek is going to affect that
more.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot, for the life of me,
understand how a government, any striped government, cannot respond to the
needs of our children in this province, in this city, in this country by
deciding that we want the authority and we want the role personally and only
one to take care of it. I would not want
to be solely responsible on my own for the life and the well‑being of
children in our communities. So I would
strongly suggest that this government listen to the people, listen to us and
say‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable member for the Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) will have one minute
remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is now
adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Friday).